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."
Its about damned time... (Score:5, Insightful)
OT (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Its about damned time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe there is hope of a Revolution (Score:2, Insightful)
It is all about awareness and unity.
Spying and secracy does not really protect National Security.
The actuality is this spying capability is a threat to national security in that it allows a few people in control to shut down any political opposition.
Re:Its about damned time... (Score:5, Insightful)
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]
What took them so long? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Its about damned time... (Score:2, Insightful)
At that time, it wasn't unreasonable to believe our intelligence data. Of course, now that we know they were wrong, they should given the resources to do a better job next time, preferably a better budget more power to operate without the ACLU breathing down their necks demanding to know every single operation that is ongoing.
Re:OT (Score:5, Insightful)
Something WAS accomplished (Score:4, Insightful)
It's precedent. It's courage.
Would you have preferred they do nothing? Stood around and bitched about The Man?
Re:OT (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Its about damned time... (Score:2, Insightful)
They've been do-nothings lately though, so everyone sucks.
Re:This sucks. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:OT (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Its about damned time... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Its about damned time... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Its about damned time... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:George W's reply to the House of Representative (Score:4, Insightful)
Bush's reply has been something along the lines of, "There are men and women out there dying in Iraq. We need this bill to pass so that we can go back to making the world safe for our soldiers and our families. So please hurry up and make telephone companies immune from prosecution."
The major disconnect here has been that Bush has had plenty of opportunity to just sign the bill and go back to listening in on phone conversations. The fact that he has hung the entire bill on the passage of retroactive immunity has made it clear that he's either just fucking around and seriously doesn't care about what the military agenda is, or he's clearly got something to hide involving those phone companies. Either way, I'ma go make a bag of popcorn and wait to see what happens next.
Re:OT (Score:3, Insightful)
Rule of law ALWAYS applies to everyone. People need to learn that even the president cannot make them perform illegal acts.
Re:OT (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Its about damned time... (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, the sad part is that come November, there will probably be a Democrat president and a Democrat-dominated Congress, and we'll see the same partisan lineups which means the next President gets to rule by decree.
Washington was right. Parties are bad things.
Re:OT (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Yay (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes!!
I was talking to someone the other day about the coming elections and I just said that I vote third party but I really want a Republican in the Whitehouse as long as we have a Democrat controlled Congress. Because whenever one party controls the Executive and the Legislative branches of Government, regardless of which party, we get out of control spending, Civil Liberties are trumped upon, ... just horrible Government.
This person said, "So, you want them arguing all the time.
I said, "Yes. That's only way to get decent Government."
Re:Evil men doing good things (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Its about damned time... (Score:2, Insightful)
So if what you (and you link) are saying were correct, then WMD's would have been found all over Iraq, with "Made in USA" scratched out and "Made in France" penciled in.
Also, I'm curious. Do you really not care about all the mass graves and rape rooms found all over Iraq? Why does a true tyrant who really did fill mass graves and gas women and children not bother nearly half as much you as much as Bush?
Forgive the OT, but I am responding to a post...
Re:OT (Score:4, Insightful)
The "Earned Income Credit" allows for tax refunds in excess of the amount paid in taxes. Call it what you will, but I call a refund amount of >100% welfare.
If the republicans wanted to run on a platform of "we're going to give cash handouts to millions of people and pay for it by borrowing from the future", then they should have just come out and said that.
Re:Its about damned time... (Score:-1, Insightful)
Sort of like the NRA? The second amendment already has plenty of people defending it, and these people have far more power and influence with the President and Congress than the ACLU could ever dream about.
Re:Its about damned time... (Score:2, Insightful)
Forgive the OT, but I am responding to a post...
Re:This doesn't address the issue. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:OT (Score:4, Insightful)
You sound much more Libertarian than Republican. The Republican Party in its current format has strayed far, far away from the old model of states' rights and limited government.
ACLU is biased? (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:OT (Score:4, Insightful)
The telecoms need only to provide documents showing legal justification for their actions, and they're basically off the hook.
Guess who doesn't want any investigation of said legal justification?
Go live in your libertarian utopia and take your attitude with you. I suggest though that you work out a lot first, as the first person stronger than you will have plenty of fun with you. You will find that everyone eventually meets someone stronger or faster, and without the protection of civilized society, things get seriously uneven seriously quickly. The purpose of taxes and the occasional leg up for people down on their luck is an efficient way to restore their productivity, so they can make net contributions to the society.The point of helping people out is to get them productive: it's an investment, not a giveaway. There are times when the investment doesn't work out but by and large, people tend to want to produce.
Re:Its about damned time... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:4, Insightful)
You asked a loaded question, I asked a loaded question.
You answered with the same response your loaded question deserves.
Re:Its about damned time... (Score:4, Insightful)
You do not understand what impeachment is.
U.S. Consitution, Article II, Section 4: Or, as Gerald Ford put it [wikipedia.org], "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."
Re:Its about damned time... (Score:3, Insightful)
Too many people vote republican thinking it's the same thing it was before Reagan.
Re:Its about damned time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fearmongering (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Its about damned time... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Its about damned time... (Score:3, Insightful)
Civil liberties. There's a difference.
Re:Something I don't get (Score:3, Insightful)
Otherwise, if they want to make sure a lot of heads don't roll, Bush is going to break his wrist signing all the pre-emptive pardons that will be necessary at the end of this year.
Re:ACLU is biased? (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreeing with the Supreme Court makes you... wait for it... Conservative.
Conservatives would argue the Supreme Court is far too liberal.
Re:ACLU is biased? (Score:5, Insightful)
By this logic, bans or restrictions on assault rifles and machine guns clearly do violate the 2nd Amendment, as they are clearly intended for military (and hence militia) use. (The court agreed with the general definition of "militia" as "all able-bodied males", not members of regular forces.)
US vs Miller is one of those bad decisions in which both sides can find something to back up their claims. The ACLU claiming that it settles the point is complete cop-out.
Re:Its about damned time... (Score:2, Insightful)
Telecom immunity (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:ACLU is biased? (Score:4, Insightful)
We shouldn't modify the meaning of the constitution based on what we think the founders would likely say about conditions today. If they meant all weapons then all weapons should be legal. If you don't want people carrying nukes around then the constitution should be modified to explicitly make exceptions for weapons that have extreme destructive power. I don't want individuals to have legal access to nukes, but we really should make an amendment to assert that desire.
Surely it would not be hard to pass an anti-personal-nuke amendment. If the supreme court didn't go around making reasonable assumptions about what the founders would have wanted then the constitution would end up reflecting what the law actually is and we wouldn't have to pick presidents based on whether they'll pick supreme court justices that we agree with.
Of course, we'd still have to pick presidents who would pick justices who treated the law with respect (which certainly hasn't happened during the last two presidential elections, so perhaps that's a pipe dream).
Re:Its about damned time... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Its about damned time... (Score:4, Insightful)
Wikipedia says:
"The Justice Department recommends anyone requesting a pardon must wait five years after conviction or release prior to receiving a pardon. A presidential pardon may be granted at any time, however, and as when Ford pardoned Nixon, the pardoned person need not yet have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime. Clemency may also be granted without the filing of a formal request and even if the intended recipient has no desire to be pardoned."
Now, apart for Scooter Libby, nobody in the administration has actually been indicted, let alone convicted, of a crime for warantless wiretapping, torture, etc. Presidential Pardons shouldn't apply to the sitting President himself, so a Bush pre-emptive blanket pardon for all crimes involving FISA violations or torture (for example) would probably be invalid if Bush would be a beneficiary of that pardon. That might get appealed to the Supreme Court and who knows how they would vote now, but a good prosecutor might have enough motivation for pursuing it that far. More specific individual pardons would effectively identify who was guilty and what they were guilty of. Some may prefer to take their chances that they won't be found out than be outed by a pardon since it could destroy their career if they're a non-appointed government employee.
We're talking potentially hundreds of people here, so such an egregious abuse of the Presidential Pardon could even fuel the drive for a constitutional amendment to remove the power, although I doubt the Dems would be willing to give it up. You never know though: while there's obviously Clinton's infamous 140 last minute pardons, Republican politicians and their flunkies have generally been the bigger beneficiaries from Presidential Pardons in the last 40 years.
Re:Its about damned time... (Score:4, Insightful)
This whole Democrat == BIG government and Republican == SMALL government is so much hogswallop. The only place where there is an actual honest foundational difference in political party is in its constituents (that's you and me, folks). The "distinguished fellows" up on the Hill are just using those banners and slogans for personal gain in power/position. It is so much spin and feel-good nonsense doled out in carefully measured portions for the average person to _feel_ something.
Add to this mishmash of incredulity the personal observations I've seen of Republicans saying very "Democrat" things and vice versa. It is a mindgame being played on us.
I am a registered Republican...I have some idealized notions of government which put me in that political party. I've seen and heard nothing lately that impresses upon me that my chosen political party is _doing_ anything very "Republican" lately. I'll tell you, Bush has completely fucked ANY Republican candidate hoping to run for the office of President...good luck Senator McCain, you have a steep road to climb. How even more fucked up is it that the Democratic candidates are bitchslapping one another right now, making what should be a total cakewalk into the White House an entirely questionable affair?
OK, my diatribe about politics is over. Hooray for the House, Democratic or Republican, for crafting a bill and passing it that actually has the average American citizen's best interests in mind. Who'd've thunk it? I seethe that I voted for that sonuvabitch who thinks he can bully through such an obvious attempt to CYA for what will surely eventually be revealed as gross misappropriations of our privacy and civil liberties at the hands of the Telco's on behalf of "protecting America". I call bullshit!!
Re:OT (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I'm sure no one will ever work a phone again. no doubt.
There are companies that did not comply, first of all. Secondly, sending a very, very clear message that the correct answer to a government request for private information on your customers is "Where is your warrant?", not "What data format would you like?", is worth nearly any price.
Then companies who don't have to pay those massive settlements can prosper and the ones who do can struggle and/or fail. That sounds a whole lot like win-win to me.
Re:Evil men doing good things (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that they were bright thinkers of their time, but surely they can't have got EVERYTHING right. For starters, they didn't even let women and black people vote.
So instead of saying founding father this and founding father that, why not think for yourselves what is right for THIS age and time.
Re:Evil men doing good things (Score:5, Insightful)
You know the old statement--those who forget history are doomed to repeat it?
Re:Fearmongering (Score:3, Insightful)
OMG (Score:5, Insightful)
In the timeless words of Charlie Brown: Good grief!
Re:Its about damned time... (Score:2, Insightful)
For instance, they are quick to come to muslim's defense for any perceived slight, but should a christian suffer the same thing (which happens a lot more often) they are silent.
That's simply a liberal agenda at work. They are no longer a civil rights protector - they haven't been in a long time.
EK
Re:Its about damned time... (Score:1, Insightful)
Not as clear cut as you might imagine. "The People" is a phrase commonly used to refer to the collective will of the community. For an example, see most court cases prosecuted by the state, where the plaintiff is always "The People".
It's quite possible that it was the intent of the founding fathers to place gun ownership in the hands of state governments.