Dodd, Feingold To Try and Filibuster Immunity Bill 368
shma writes "This morning the senate has a scheduled cloture vote to cut off debate on the FISA bill which grants retroactive immunity to telecoms who engaged in warrantless wiretapping. Senators Russ Feingold and Christopher Dodd have pledged to try and filibuster the bill, but require the vote of 40 senators to keep the filibuster alive. The article states that a similar 'threatened filibuster failed in February, when the Senate passed a measure that granted amnesty and largely legalized the President's secret warrantless wiretapping programs.' Should they lose the cloture vote, the bill is all but assured of passing. A proposed amendment stripping the immunity provision from the bill is also expected to fail."
Obama (Score:2, Interesting)
Retroactive warrants (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Obama (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So will Obama be there? (Score:5, Interesting)
Dodd... (Score:5, Interesting)
Badges (Score:3, Interesting)
Because that would mean they're following the law. To quote a Bush Administration agent, "Badges!?! Badges?!? We don't need no stinking badges!"
That's their mentality.
Re:So will Obama be there? (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree, Obama is probably a better choice than McCain. (Although it's still a little early to be making decisions now, especially with no VP picks yet.)
That doesn't mean he shouldn't be called on his bullshit, though. If he's going to change his mind, that's fine, but he needs a reason. The reasoning here appears to be "the Republicans called me weak on terrorists" which is a rather lame reason.
Re:Dodd... (Score:3, Interesting)
This [freedomworks.org] is worth a look too. For those to lazy to RTFA much-less read yet another one, it is regarding a provision Dodd slipped into some housing legislation that would require just about all small businesses to "track, aggregate, and report information on nearly every electronic transaction to the federal government."
This is why Republics Fail (Score:5, Interesting)
How does this happen... (Score:5, Interesting)
I met Dodd once. Struck me as typical politician (Score:5, Interesting)
I met Dodd once. He was trying to sneak a relative into an event where I was interpreting for foreign dignitaries. The woman working security told him his guest did not have the proper credentials to enter the VIP area. His response was quick:
"But I'm SENATOR Dodds."
She wasn't impressed:
"Yes, I know that. And HE doesn't have the proper credentials."
Re:Obama (Score:2, Interesting)
130 'Present' votes is a lot, regardless of the percentage. Some of those times he was following instructions from his Party, but others it was just politics as usual.
I didn't excoriate him for it, I just pointed it out. He is no different than any other politician.
Re:Retroactive warrants (Score:5, Interesting)
Because they're monitoring everyone's phone. FISA allows the feds to sneak a peak at someone's phone and apply for a warrent to tap THAT phone after the fact. It doesn't allow for wholesale surveillance of the nation.
The White House plan was exactly that, so FISA wasn't enough.
Moving away from facts to opinions, it makes me want to puke that this bill is called a "compromise". The things that are compromised are our civil liberties and the law. It busts me up inside. I'm a progressive minded guy, but I have to rank my priorities. The rule of law has to come before other things I'd like to see politically -- like national healthcare and so on.
The Democrats like to promise both, but when it comes to the fight, they say to their civil libertarian base, "Hang on, children. It's just not viable to investigate that or impeach that guy. Not in an election year!" As if I care if you get elected if you're not holding some feet to the fire.
The real tragedy is that there's a consensus on civil liberties that's divided across the party lines. The libertarian wing of the Republicans and the (civil) libertarian wing of the Dems are always left out in the cold by their party leadership. We just get fucked on both ends, don't we?
If there was room for third and fourth and fifth parties, we wouldn't have to sit in the back of our respective conventions, holding our hats and pleading that this year they take our platform seriously. Instead, we vote along each year based on BS wedge issues like gun rights, gay marriage, and abortion when the truth is the real decisions on these issues matters so very little compared to nationwide surveillance.
Screw it. I say make guns illegal for those over 18, but require minors to carry machine guns by law (and no nambly-pambly assault rifles either). Break up all heterosexual marriages and assign everyone a new gay spouse. No abortions during the first three trimesters, but free abortions during the first year after birth... just VOTE TO STOP THE PHONE TAPPING.
Re:So will Obama be there? (Score:3, Interesting)
I know several people in the intelligence community, mostly hackers, CS researchers, and technical people. They are all against telecom immunity and against the current wiretapping procedures. (One of them actually works for the company that made the P2P throttling software for Comcast). Whenever I discuss the subject, they are sympathetic and tell me that the U.S. government abuses their powers far more than is publicly known.
Things will TRULY be bad when they are afraid to tell me that they are against it.
Canada had this since 1996, what is the big deal? (Score:1, Interesting)
Canada had this since 1996, when Alan Rock, a left wing joker, created a law which allows the Police to take, and do anything they want, with out fully telling the judge who is issuing the warrant.
Even if the Police in Canada just thought you might be guilty of something, they can act upon 'their feelings', and than get the warrant for the crime they say you committed. Or just fore go the warrant based on what they tell the crown.
If you are a firearm owner in Canada, the Police can enter your home, place of work, friend's homes, family's homes, looking for firearms 24/7.
This has happened in Canada more often than what is reported in the media.
Re:Retroactive warrants (Score:5, Interesting)
A few things that make this debate simpler than you think...
Foreign-to-foreign calls are just a red herring - if they really couldn't tap them without a warrant (and under current law, they already can; 50 U.S.C. Â1802(a)(1)) they could just write "except for foreign-to-foreign calls" into the FISA law.
It came out a while ago that the issue really is email. You don't know where the person actually is with 100% certainty if the message hasn't been delivered, so that's why they want all this legalese with "reasonably believed to be outside of the US". This is what they really want and they're using foreign-to-foreign calls as an excuse to push for this.
None of this changes the fact that the 4th Amendment protects American citizens from warrantless surveillance. If they want to be able to wiretap American citizens without a warrant for any reason whatsoever (including national security), they ought to pass a Constitutional amendment.
None of this changes the fact that those private companies knowingly violated multiple federal laws [eff.org] that were put in place to prevent and protect against exactly this sort of behavior. Do you think Congress would give you immunity for breaking multiple federal laws? (assuming you had the connections and enough money) Isn't this two-tier system of justice, where the rich can buy the right to violate the law while everyone else must suffer justice, the antithesis of what makes America great?
Re:Retroactive warrants (Score:3, Interesting)
It is my opinion that his advisers are the hands in the sock puppet. He's not the most reliable puppet, e.g., he goes off message and he has this annoying habit of talking near open mics, but the agenda is 100% driven by Dick Cheney's cronies, which happen to include George H. W. Bush. GWB's father vouched for him, and even though he can be a loose cannon, he has by and large carried out the agenda of the people who put him in power. Many in his administration have proven themselves sloppy and incompetent, but in general, his presidency has served its investors very well.
There's nothing inherently wrong with this configuration. It just happens that the world has changed beyond what any of this particular cabal understands or cares about, and so it looks like everything is falling apart. Rest assured that their interests are well taken care of; it's yours and mine that are not being represented, hence the attractiveness of the "change" meme.
The optimal configuration is a person presiding over the republic whose sponsors ("advisers") have interests more closely aligned with the electorate. This is a very rare combination; not impossible, but highly improbable.
War and politics are about money. Period. Full stop. End of sentence. Ideological discussion is simply window dressing, elaboration, accompaniment to the melody. Cosmic forces make the world go 'round, but money motivates human beings more consistently than any other stimulus.
Re:Never any real change in a two party system (Score:4, Interesting)
You think that the a Democratic president would have invaded Iraq?
Something like that [wikipedia.org] is conceivable. [wikipedia.org]
Imprisoned and tortured innocent people?
It's happened before. [wikipedia.org]
Pushed for telecom immunity in the first place?
Who [wikipedia.org] do you [wikipedia.org] think [wikipedia.org] is pushing for it now? [salon.com]
Undermined the military?
There's a reason why even Bush used to be against [independent.org] nation-building [allafrica.com] before he was for it.
Don't get me wrong, it's obvious that on average the Democrats are doing a lot better than the Republicans lately. But you can't just say "a [party I like] President" wouldn't have done such bad things; that kind of tribalism valuing affiliation over actions is at the root of how the Republican Party self-destructed, and the Democrats aren't immune from the same human impulses.
To get down to specific examples, I think it's pretty clear by now that Gore wouldn't have made most of the mistakes Bush did, but I don't think it's clear that the privacy issues [epic.org] we're discussing right now aren't an exception.
Re:Obama (Score:5, Interesting)
If one is protecting their country from attack, then by extension they are also protecting their homes.
Also, the reason behind that amendment was also to allow people to protect themselves from the government itself. Granted, Shays Rebellion was a failure and occurred during the Articles of Confederation, but few questioned the right of the people to use guns against the government. In fact, if you go to the Wiki page, you will see Jefferson's quote that you cited as well as the sentences leading up to that quote. In effect, Jefferson said that uprisings and rebellions are a good thing that should happen from time to time.
The issue you talk about is being decided in the Supreme Court as we speak. They have taken up the case in the District of Columbia which has effectively banned people from having handguns. The issues to be decided come to: a) Can a local government, or the government in general, prevent people from owning handguns and b) what does the 2nd Amendment actually mean? Does it apply to only people as part of a militia or to the people in general? Here is CNN's synopsis [cnn.com] of the arguments before the court.
Re:How does this happen... (Score:4, Interesting)
Simply put, it's an election year and none of the Democrats want to appear "soft on terrorism/defense/insert-the-buzzword-of-the-day-here", out of fear of losing their jobs.
A fear which is sadly [salon.com] confused [salon.com]; how do you appear "strong" by doing exactly what your opponent wants but less enthusiastically? The Democrats are never going to be perceived as more zealously hard-on-terrorism than the Republicans, so their only hope is to try to motivate people who want them to be zealously strong-on-liberty instead. Weakling decisions like "I voted against the Fourth Amendment, but I felt really bad about it" aren't going to win them any voters from any part of the political spectrum.
Re:Blaming the wrong people... (Score:3, Interesting)
That's it, exactly. I keep forgetting this; it's just personal resentment towards telcos that reminds me where I'd rather this thing end up.
It's as though the Democrats are afraid of shaming the President. They won't do anything substantial about what he and his gang have perpetrated. This "impeachment's off the table" smacks of blackmail fear or some misplaced perception that the electorate just doesn't want another impeachment.
I want a real one. I want for soap opera broadcasts to be pre-empted, I want a parade of dozens of officials taking the Fifth, and several very damning "I don't recall" responses.
I also want the power to levitate at will and to travel through time without disrupting anything, you know, inconvenient to me.
I do believe that this administration has at least one more gut-level shocking revelation coming. I don't really think that any of them will pay for it with jail time, nor to do think that any of them will really care whether the exposure will prevent them from "serving" in government after the fact.
I think that both the Executive and the Legislative branches have something to hide here, and I suspect that the filibuster threat is an empty gambit. Either the telcos are funding all of the reelection campaigns, or the Congressional committees knew about it too and approved it.
We have become that which we resisted. Welcome, comrades!
Re:Retroactive warrants (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the most powerful persuasive factor in Nixon's resignation was the perception that the people wanted to see him go down.
That's what makes Nixon's tapes unique. They were voice-activated. The other Presidents that we know who had tapes, they pushed the button, they recorded when they saw fit, and when they wanted to. They turned it off when they wanted. But Nixon's were voice activated. No doubt, he was aware of the taping system sometimes. Sometimes I think he and Haldeman had what I would consider to be contrived conversations clearly for the record. But other times, as you know, when you're being taped, sometimes you become oblivious to it, and you just go on. And he did.
~Stanley Kutler, transcriber of the tapes, on Nixon's taping setup [pbs.org]
Re:Obama (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:So will Obama be there? (Score:3, Interesting)
Most votes are wasted. What good does it do to vote for a winner? Your vote is not wasted only if it influnces the outcome. This is a rare event. However, if 500 people had voted for Gore instead of Nader in Flordia, then the world would be different now.
Different, but IMHO not any better. I voted for Nader hoping that it would help Gore to lose (I'm not in Florida tho), even though I think Republican politicians are complete scum. The thing is, I think Democratic politicians are complete scum too, but scum that ought to know better. I think the only way to bring the Dems back in line with their platform is to vote for independents and hope the Dems lose in the process-- if it happens repeatedly year after year eventually they'll get the message that what they're doing ain't working very well.
I knew full well in 2000 that Bush was an accident looking for a place to happen, and voted for Nader realizing that. Bush exceeded my wildest expectations in that regard. It was clear to me that until it got a LOT worse, it wasn't going to get any better so there's no point in mitigating the damage by voting for a Democrat and postponing the agony. What surprised me though, is that the voting populace actually didn't see Bush as the colossal screwup he obviously (to me, at least) was, and he was voted in again-- but I figured that is a good thing as the Dems just won't learn.
This year, I actually hope McCain will get in and continue to show the Dems that they are banging their head against a wall and better shape up if they ever want to see the oval office again. I think McCain would likely be nearly as bad as Bush, but as I said, I don't see it getting better until it gets a lot worse and Obama would just prolong the agony in making the Dems think what they're doing is OK.
So I'll vote independent-- ANY independent, as I refuse to vote for the scum of the earth, whether red or blue, and whether or not they have a chance of winning or not. While Barr may not have a chance of winning, Obama does have a chance of losing, and that is what I'm shooting for-- I just refuse to vote for McCain to try to accomplish it.
Re:So you're bashing Obama... (Score:5, Interesting)
But perhaps you can tell me where a guy fits in who:
- Supports the first AND second AND fourth amendments
- Supports abortion rights
- Supports universal health care and malpractice tort reform
- Opposes wacko environmentalists, bible-thumpers, and political-correctness
- Distrusts big business and trial lawyers
- Hates the Iraq War
- Fully supports the Afghan War
- Thinks the government should help the poor more than the rich, but not to the point of fraud and dependency
- Supports higher taxes and less spending
- Thinks the government has a responsibility to balance the deficit before this country goes bankrupt
- Supports putting an income test on entitlements like Social Security
Now, tell me what party speaks for me. Jesse Ventura is the closest thing I've seen so far to my ideals. And alas, he doesn't have a party either.Re:Never any real change in a two party system (Score:1, Interesting)
Wasn't the biggest ballooning of the federal budget (and debt) of the last 50 years under Reagan? Followed by the Bushes?