Retroactive Telco Immunity Opponents Buying TV Ad 291
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Whether they're mad at the Republicans for creating the mess, the Democrats for caving in, or both, many are still pissed off over the grant of retroactive immunity for spying on American citizens for no reason. And now some of them are trying to do something about it — they're buying an advertisement on cable TV. While it's not entirely clear what good, if any, this will do given that it's too late, at least it's cheap to participate — they're looking for $6 donations. The ideas is that, if more grass-roots groups do this kind of thing, their 'representatives' won't be able to afford to blow them off as easily."
Direct link, because editors are lazy (Score:5, Informative)
The link is to a Wired blog. The direct link is http://getfisaright.net/promote [getfisaright.net]. And they're not asking for donations of $6, they're asking people to pay to run the ad - which might be $6, or could be a lot more, depending on the market and time of day. I think it would be a lot more efficient if they set up a fund to accept donations and ran the campaign from there.
Apparently they know how to get FISA right, but not how to get their advertising campaign right.
Re:I wouldn't mind doing this (Score:5, Informative)
I've been donating regularly to this cause (ActBlue) and have not had this experience, at least with this PAC. I think it would be a supreme irony for a pro-privacy group to abuse their members in such a manner. Not that it wouldn't happen these days, I'm just saying it hasn't been my experience.
Congress Writes the Laws... (Score:5, Informative)
"Whether they're mad at the Republicans for creating the mess, the Democrats for caving in...
The 110th Congress Composition: 282 Democrats - 274 Republicans - 2 Independents. So please tell me how Republicans created this mess?
Re:Democrat Senators who voted for FISA (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not sure where you got your list from, but I noticed it leaves off Webb (D-VA), and further searching reveals it doesn't seem to match up with the Senate's own records [senate.gov] at all.
Re:Democrat Senators who voted for FISA (Score:3, Informative)
Not the right list. The one you want is here. [senate.gov]
Re:I wouldn't mind doing this (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Congress Writes the Laws... (Score:5, Informative)
Aside from the fact that it was a republican administration that initiated the illegal program, four senior republican lawmakers who attempted to expand it with the "Terrorist Surveillance Act (2006)" and a senior republican (Specter R-PA) who introduced immunity, I can completely see how it wasn't the republicans who created the wiretapping and immunity mess...
Re:I wouldn't mind doing this (Score:3, Informative)
I think it would be a supreme irony for a pro-privacy group to abuse their members in such a manner.
Not "ironic", just hypocritical.
Re:Congress Writes the Laws... (Score:4, Informative)
Not to mention the fact that the program was divulged in 2005, and was active well before that, and that the current congress wasn't seated until January, 2007...
Re:Democrat Senators who voted for FISA (Score:3, Informative)
Thank you for that! Here's the list of both Democrats AND Republicans who voted for or against it, from the link you provided. I don't know where the GP got off just listing Democrats, both mainstream parties are firmly pro-corporation and anti-people.
It looks like my Senators (bolded) cancelled each other out. The Republican candidate for President didn't even bother to show up for the vote.
Akaka (D-HI), Nay Alexander (R-TN), Yea Allard (R-CO), Yea Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Baucus (D-MT), Yea Bayh (D-IN), Yea Bennett (R-UT), Yea Biden (D-DE), Nay Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Bond (R-MO), Yea Boxer (D-CA), Nay Brown (D-OH), Nay Brownback (R-KS), Yea Bunning (R-KY), Yea Burr (R-NC), Yea Byrd (D-WV), Nay Cantwell (D-WA), Nay Cardin (D-MD), Nay Carper (D-DE), Yea Casey (D-PA), Yea Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Clinton (D-NY), Nay Coburn (R-OK), Yea Cochran (R-MS), Yea Coleman (R-MN), Yea Collins (R-ME), Yea Conrad (D-ND), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea DeMint (R-SC), Yea Dodd (D-CT), Nay Dole (R-NC), Yea Domenici (R-NM), Yea Dorgan (D-ND), Nay Durbin (D-IL), Nay Ensign (R-NV), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea Feingold (D-WI), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea Grassley (R-IA), Yea Gregg (R-NH), Yea Hagel (R-NE), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay Hatch (R-UT), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea Inouye (D-HI), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting Kerry (D-MA), Nay Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Yea Kyl (R-AZ), Yea Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Leahy (D-VT), Nay Levin (D-MI), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea Lincoln (D-AR), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting McCaskill (D-MO), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea Menendez (D-NJ), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Yea Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea Obama (D-IL), Yea Pryor (D-AR), Yea Reed (D-RI), Nay Reid (D-NV), Nay Roberts (R-KS), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Yea Sanders (I-VT), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Nay Sessions (R-AL), Not Voting Shelby (R-AL), Yea Smith (R-OR), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea Specter (R-PA), Yea Stabenow (D-MI), Nay Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay Thune (R-SD), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea Voinovich (R-OH), Yea Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Yea Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea Wicker (R-MS), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 18.4) so you must make your coherent comment incoherent.
Sorry guys, slashdot won't allow lists.
Re:Congress Writes the Laws... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I wouldn't mind doing this (Score:4, Informative)
Situation: Pro-privacy group receives thousands of e-mails.
The intention: Pro-privacy group works for the privacy of the users of these e-mail addresses
Apparent result: E-mails are sold to a commercial entity, having the pro-privacy group give up the privacy of its members.
This is the definition of irony. In fact, most hypocritical actions are, in fact, ironic.
4th Amendment? 1st Amendment! (Score:4, Informative)
Much ado is made about the violation of the 4th amendment embodied in the passage of the FISA bill. While I find that to be more than sufficient to find the passage of that bill to be a violation of the oath to defend The Constitution, I believe the violation of the 1st is more troubling.
The 1st Amendment documents fact that our right to petition the government for redress of grievances cannot be infringed. Bringing a civil suit is exactly what it is talking about. The judicial is the branch of government that has the authority to grant redress. It is the sole prerogative of the judicial to decide whether a law has been infringed. Congress can change the laws going forward, but once a petition for redress reaches the court, it is out of the hands of the legislative.
While I completely agree that the infringement of the 4th in the name of the war on terror is wrong, it is not a clear attempt to usurp the sovereign power of the American people to control the powers of government. The violation of the 1st amendment's right to petition for redress is the most egregious portion of the FISA bill.
As an aside; one can also see the attempted shift in the balance of power with the newly merged PRO-IP/PIRATE acts. The way it has worked (in all cases, as far as I know), is that government cases against the people were criminal, and required proof beyond a reasonable doubt. People's cases against the government or agents of government are civil, requiring preponderance of evidence. Some are holding hope for the possibility of criminal action, but even so, with the FISA bill, we lost the right to preponderance of evidence. With PRO-IP/PIRATE, the government is taking preponderance in place of beyond reasonable doubt. It is extremely telling and disturbing to me that the government is simultaneously saying that the people cannot be trusted with preponderance, and that the government need not be limited to beyond reasonable doubt.
Re:I wouldn't mind doing this (Score:2, Informative)
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Good Charities and Bad Charities (Score:5, Informative)
"I no longer give to charity for an extension of those same reasons. Charities are now run like businesses, with salaried fund raisers, and wage slaver collectors on the streets. They pay to make money, and they make more money this way. Since making money is their primary cause, they see it as a good thing."
I understand where you're coming from, since I give a good bit to charities myself... however, don't write all charities off because of the smarmy, professional fund raisers that some employ. A good way to gauge good charities is with Charity Navigator [charitynavigator.org], which rates charities on a variety of topics, including fundraising and expenses. If a charity is spending too much on fundraising and administration, it's all laid out for you to see. Most also have their mailing list and privacy policies available there. Before I give to any cause now, I check Charity Navigator first.
Re:A TV ad? (Score:1, Informative)
Sounds like a scam to me. Poor effort... Ask for money... Maybe you all will get lucky and see an improved effort after you send your money. Or, someone will collect your money and spend it in whatever fashion they like.
Re:The gentleman doth protest too much (Score:2, Informative)
Statistically, I'm as likely to be struck by lightning as I am to be killed by a terrorist...
If statistical insignificance was the measure of safety, then neither terrorism nor illegal wiretapping would be anything to worry about. People right now are dying of starvation and we're whining about wiretapping?
Rather, it's the principle of the thing. You've got two sides, both sticking to their principles, to the extreme. And (sadly), neither side is offering arguments which would compel an otherwise indifferent bystander to action. Granted, I can understand how a government acting outside the law is problematic, but you need to show actual harm to the guy on the street before he's going to buy your argument.
Re:The gentleman doth protest too much (Score:1, Informative)
FISA is the fucking law, you moron. If you want to argue about the Bill of Rights, those stop precisely at the fucking border. The Government, every fucking government, has the right to inspect goods coming in and going out of their fucking country.
Wah wah, for the fucking terrorists. Next you'll be talking about water boarding, which was used on 3 fucking terrorists (known, self-admitted terrorists). More servicemen have been water boarded in the sere program and I don't hear them crying about it as much as you diaper wearing liberal freaks.