White House Wins On Spying, Telecom Immunity 658
EllisDees sends in a Washington Post report that Senate Republicans have outmaneuvered Democrats, who withdrew a more stringent version of legislation to control the government's domestic surveillance program. The legislation that will go forward includes a grant of legal immunity to telecommunications companies that have assisted the program.
Scumbags (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Scumbags (Score:5, Interesting)
Governments can pass whatever laws they like, but if those laws are later found to be unconstitutional, then they are rendered void, and so are immunities granted under them. Admittedly there is no chance of that happening in this case, but still... that's the theory. Pity about the practice.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, but it means that they don't have to care.
To paraphrase, "Legal immunity means never having to say you're sorry."
This is great news! I support the White House! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is great news! I support the White House! (Score:5, Funny)
Now that they have their trillion-node quantum computer cluster with Strong AI they can easily detect sarcasm and insincerity, and you have surely been marked as a dissident.
Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure how immunity can be granted when it clearly go against the US Constitution, given that the president takes an oath "to uphold the United States Constitution", doesn't this mean he's in breach and therefore liable of contempt?
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:5, Insightful)
The most confusing part about all this is that any members of Congress continue to support the president on these matters. The broad wiretapping program is part of a serious (and so far successful) campaign by Cheney and his compatriots to expand the powers of the executive branch. While Congress continues to have their efficacy whittled away by the administration, they sit back and let him do it!
Why?
Do they need to align themselves with the president to enhance their image to the public? He's certainly not winning popular approval right now.
Do they need the approval and agreement of the president to achieve useful goals? He has yet to approve anything that doesn't fall into his specific ideology.
Do they expect the president to return the favor and compromise on other matters? He certainly hasn't so far.
So what's left? Why is Congress bowing down to this monster at their own expense? I can't understand why the Republicans in Congress support such an unpopular tyrant, much less the Democrats. Congress looks like a bunch of whipped dogs. Do none of them have the balls to start giving our government some semblance of repair and restoration?
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:5, Insightful)
They're like a guy who plays chicken in an SUV and runs off the road the second the other driver starts his compact car.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Given their history of trashing rights and the social safety net throughout the 90's, yes, they are spineless. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", "The End of Welfare as We Know It", bankruptcy "reform", student loan "reform", etc.
But they are also triangulating for 2008. They are allowing the current status quo of trashi
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:4, Insightful)
We no longer have a Republic. Maybe we can win it back.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems unlikely, though. Considering how big a deal they make out of every "foiled terrorist plot" they uncover that turns out to be a bunch of wankers who live in a warehouse and talk about blowing up buildings but are too busy passing the pipe to get around to learning how to actually make working explosives, you would think that if they had any actual successes from a controversial program they would be trotting
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:5, Insightful)
How they did it (Score:4, Informative)
So far, the best collection of linkage and summary I've seen on this has been at The Mahablog [mahablog.com] (Warning: liberal. Like me, so, deal.)
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:5, Insightful)
I think back to visiting the film library at the hospital where I work. It was the day after one of the debates between Bush & Kerry. The folks in the film library were all planning on voting for Bush. Their reason: Kerry used too many words in the debate.
He used too many words...in a debate...
I sort of lost all hope then.
This quote: (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course not. That would be stupid.
That's why you're allowed up to 72 hours AFTER to file the correct paperwork with the FISA court.
It's called "checks and balances". It was a key point in the founding of our government. It WAS a key point. And it was agreed to by people who had put their own lives on the line when they signed our Declaration of Independence.
There's more risk of corrupt officials using this to further their own agendas than there is that it will stop any terrorist.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That is just how long they have to declare the search to a court. They don't EVER have to tell the subject of the investigation about the wiretap. This is about oversight - not about publicity. The FISA court records remain completely sealed, and the court itself is about as protected as the CIA from evesdropping.
There is no reason that somebody can't bother
Or, they can send SOMEONE ELSE! (Score:4, Insightful)
And they can even have one team do the surveillance and a DIFFERENT team file the paperwork and handle the FISA court stuff.
You know, I'd have a BIT more regard for their cause if they had a trailer parked in front of the FISA Court's office, packed with people busily filing the paperwork that they claim cannot be done in time.
If they were demanding more people to handle the workload
If they were demanding secure offices closer to the court
I'm not seeing any of that. NOTHING indicates ANY problem with the process. Just that they do not want to follow the process.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, there's a problem with the process all right. The problem is that even though the FISA court is widely regarded as a 'rubber-stamp' court that grants very nearly all warrant requests, they do at some point require the most basic of evidence to establish probable cause in accordance with the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.
And the Admin can't do that. So you see, this is a seri
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
According to FISA, they have 72 hours after tapping a thing, to get a warrant. The phone companies, for FISA to work, must allow the NSA to tap the lines 72 hours in advance of a warrant. The phone companies, have done nothing wrong. The NSA, in this instance, has done nothing wrong. It is only after 72 hours of tapping something that the NSA could have possibly done something wrong. The NSA cannot be expected to also provide the phone com
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes and the same can be said of the Democrats who went along with this travesty...
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh? Thats like saying if a cop (Democrats) sees a man beating his wife (Bush and the Constitution) hes not at fault for standing by and doing *nothing*..
Bush and the rest of the proto-fascists have a hard on for this police state they're creating
You just dont seem to get it... why did the dems not strongly oppose this? Because odds are they will be in the white house in 2008 and they would love to have this kind of power... Remember all the 'missing' FBI files in the white hose during the last administration?
They are playing a game; when one is in power the other uses procedural measures to stop them (like stopping judges from even getting a vote), the party in power complains about obstruction tactics the political winds of change blow and when the shoe is on the other foot its the same game with the roles reversed.
You cant honestly believe the party that considers hate speech too offensive to be covered by the first amendment is anything short of a fascist entity can you? The dems tell you what to think, and the republicans listen in to every word you say... Either way until some third parties start asserting themselves we are in real trouble..
and there is little the Dems can do to stop it, for the time being.
LOL you cant really be saying this, your as bad as the Republicans who blindly let their party leave its core values (small government) under the guise of 'well we dont have a super majority, but when we do, then things will be different'... What a sad joke. The dems have more than enough power to stop *everything* this administration wants to do, they just dont want to fight for it...
The GOP as a minority party killed everything Bill Clinton tried to do between 1992 and 1994. They made their agenda (for example: welfare reform, balanced budgets, and (unfortunately) NAFTA) Clinton's agenda. Phil Graham risked his political career to stop Hillary care and won. Sadly that GOP is gone all we are left with is two parties with *slightly* different agendas (no neither is about the constitution or your rights) who will do whatever they can to accomplish it.
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:5, Funny)
Dennis Kucinich: "No, no, no. George Bush already did that."
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I didn't see anything in there about phone lines either. Did find this though:If it's not in the Constitution, the federal government's not allowed to do it, fancy that.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution [wikipedia.org]
Off by one error (Score:3, Informative)
What the framers are telling us here is to pay attention to the spirit of the Bill of Rights, not just the letter. There is no right of privacy explicitly recognized in the Bill of Rights, but the SCOTUS has found it in the "penumbra" of various provisions of the Constitution. This kind of language makes a strict constructionist spit, bu
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:4, Insightful)
Now for those individuals who suffer an accident and their insurance runs out, they deserve to be cut off, and their lazy children can go out and get a job, being in primary school is no excuse. As for those in the military who were wounded in service, well, they should have been more careful, what right should they have for free medical services etc. for their clumsiness in being shot or blown up.
I suppose your political slogan would be, if you can't pay then you deserve to die. For you, a just, caring and sharing society, must be some kind of weird offensive thing.
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:4, Insightful)
To me, a caring and sharing society would be one where people are only generous with their own money, not with other people's money.
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:4, Interesting)
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more
perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and
secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do
ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of
America.
So, what exactly does "the general Welfare" mean?
From:
FEDERALIST No. 23
The Necessity of a Government as Energetic as the One Proposed to the Preservation of the Union
Defective as the present Confederation has been proved to be, this principle appears to have been fully recognized by the framers of it; though they have not made proper or adequate provision for its exercise. Congress have an unlimited discretion to make requisitions of men and money; to govern the army and navy; to direct their operations. As their requisitions are made constitutionally binding upon the States, who are in fact under the most solemn obligations to furnish the supplies required of them, the intention evidently was that the United States should command whatever resources were by them judged requisite to the ``common defense and general welfare.'' It was presumed that a sense of their true interests, and a regard to the dictates of good faith, would be found sufficient pledges for the punctual performance of the duty of the members to the federal head.
FEDERALIST No. 41
General View of the Powers Conferred by The Constitution
A system of government, meant for duration, ought to contemplate these revolutions, and be able to accommodate itself to them. Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power ``to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms ``to raise money for the general welfare. ''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or o
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:4, Insightful)
I suppose you could argue that a person's phone calls aren't included in the "persons, houses, papers, and effects" that the government isn't allowed to search or seize without a warrant, but I can't imagine any sane person really believing that and arguing it as anything but an intellectual exercise.
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:5, Insightful)
Alas, if only that were so.
In Sov^H^H^HPost-9/11 America, it falls on listening ears.
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:4, Insightful)
It's like UF said about "Microsoft Genuine Advantage"..."we never said it was an advantage to the customer..."
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Shhhhh!!! We're not supposed to notice that!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's true, we are. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Bush Win = Constitutional Loss (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference between, say, Bush and Clinton, is that the things people dislike Bush for are mostly all official acts. They may be abhorrent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That would be perfectly legal.
And perfectly OK with me. And most of the people responding here.
But that isn't what this bill does.
It's already legal to wiretap suspected criminals, whether they be terrorists, thieves, or drug dealers. Eve
Game Over (Score:5, Funny)
ex post facto (Score:5, Insightful)
2) The US constitution forbids ex-post-facto laws [wikipedia.org]
This is above-and-beyond the obvious fact that it is perhaps the most illegal and immoral thing I've ever heard of congress doing.
Re:ex post facto (Score:5, Informative)
amnesty (Score:2)
I think that every Republican who worked toward this should be tarred and feathered in their districts. Especially after they whine and bitch and holler about how bad it would be giving "amnesty" to all those illegal immigrants who have been actively supporting their agricultural state economies for years. This wiretap immunity is corporate amnesty.
Re:ex post facto (Score:5, Insightful)
This is above-and-beyond the obvious fact that it is perhaps the most illegal and immoral thing I've ever heard of congress doing.
Apart from failing in their duty to remove an unethical President from office?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but looking in from the outside, I don't understand how any American can possibly believe Clinton's indiscretion was worthy of impeachment while Bush Jr's systematic erosion of the checks and balances in your government and immoral actions causing the deaths of countless thousands of people apparently are not. You would think that given the obvious centralisation of power around the executive branch and its willingness to outright ignore the authority of the other two apparently on a whim, you would
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's because Ashcroft was the voice of reason (Score:3)
Re:ex post facto (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Companies collude with the executive branch to perform illegal and unconstitutional activities
2. Government passes law giving themselves the power to do this
3. Government passes law giving immunity to anyone who helps
I can actually FORGIVE #1, as sad as that is. But only because I trust the courts and congress to hold them accountable. But then when congress passes an immunity law, then what the heck???? That's about one step short of just granting themselves the power to do whatever they want. "You mean it's illegal to burst into your house and steal your possessions and rape your family? Oh, well, then we'll just fix that tomorrow in the next session..."
Now everybody will jump on my and say how they aren't really busting into American's houses. But that misses the point. The exact same tactic used to bust into American's phone lines is what would be required to bust into American homes. It's the same laws, same tactics. Frankly, I don't care if they listen in on suspected terrorist phone conversations
So where do I recruit an army?
Re:ex post facto (Score:5, Insightful)
At no point will the vast majority of people be interested in taking up arms. Fuck, over half the population doesn't even vote and 50% of those that do voted for the fascists. Another 35% of the 50% that voted for him think that what he's doing is completely and utterly correct in every single way mostly because they agree with his "morals".
When the government shuts off TV and they can't watch Wayne Newton dance like a robot and sing like a drunken karaoke participant three times a week will they finally decide it might be time to pay attention to something other than what is force fed to them alongside advertisements for more products that's only purpose is to keep them further in debt to those that the government has colluded with.
So where do I recruit an army?
At this point, armed militias are worthless against the power of the US Army and its remaining allies. They have weapons that we may acquire, regardless of the numbers of individuals we have on our side, will be of no match to the powerful arsenal that the government has.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Tell that to the Vietnamese and the Iraqis.
Asymmetric warfare works.
Also note that the US armed forces attacking US civilians in an unpopular "war" would never happen. Either the US gov would intervene far before it got to any kind of scale, and spin it so that there was popular support for their actions (or do it covertly), or they'd have to accomodate the "rebels" in some fashion.
Too many political
Democrats (Score:5, Insightful)
Translation: In a Democrat controlled congress the Democrats could not convince their own people to reject this bill. Thus the bill passed with the help of some Democrats voting for this bill.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the MINORITY has so much power to pass legislation, why doesn't the MAJORITY? [Answer: empty excuses]
Slight correction: (Score:4, Informative)
In a Democrat controlled Congress, the Republicans can still use "soft of terrorism" to get certain Democrats to vote however they want them to.
http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/trall/2007/trall071001.gif [uclick.com]
and
http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/TMW08-15-07Large.jpeg [workingforchange.com]
So you're saying the Democrats are cowards? (Score:3, Insightful)
So the Democrats who voted for this bill are too cowardly to vote for what's right instead of what's politically convenient.
Yeah, I'd say you're exactly right about that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re-translation: When Congress has little internal oversight, it's easy for the telecom companies to buy votes.
Re: (Score:2)
Democrat is a noun, Democratic is an adjective, despite what Rush tells you.
Manuvers? What? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Dems caved. I'm not sure why though. The people have spoken and put them in trusted seats of power and they CAVED. I'm sure there are lot of home teams cheering from the stands only to have the players go, "ah, well, it's a lot of work to play the game. Let's concede."
I'm disappointed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1) Progressive Democrats didn't like the bill because it wasn't strict enough.
2) Conservative Democrats didn't like the bill because it was too strict.
3) Republicans didn't like the bill because they could end up in jail.
In the end, spite didn't win out, and a couple of the conservative Dems were convinced that it could hinder the performance of the foreign espionage and, more importantly, their personal re-election campaigns.
Re: (Score:2)
What I also don't quite understand is how much of the country is now spitting nails about just how clueless these dipshits are and yet there is absolutely no movement or change whatever. What do people have to do - march on Capitol hill?
Is this
Re: (Score:2)
No, they can't get something to the president alone. You need 60 people to call for cloture in the senate before a vote can be taken.
Yes, I'm one of the 8 people in America that watches CSPAN.
Re: (Score:2)
outmaneuvered (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like the burglar who smashed my window the other day. I politely asked him to leave, yet he refused. I threatened to call the police, but he said that I shouldn't. Well, you can't argue with that! He outwitted me fully and truly!
I let the burglar ransack my house because, let's face it, I had no choice. Sure, I had a gun and a cell phone, and he was unarmed, but he kept outmaneuvering me at every turn. I said I would shoot if he raped my wife, but he preempted me! Before I knew it, he was raping my wife, and it was just too darned late to stop him, so I put down my gun and wrote a press release (which I intend to publish EVERYWHERE to let the world know how this burglar has wronged me).
Fiction! (Score:2)
Everyone knows someone on
In Red-state Amerika, the Gub'ment watches You...
11% approval rating for Congress (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
its just a godamn piece of paper (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
A Good Thing (tm) (Score:4, Insightful)
They will do it anyway they can, and have been doing it for over 60 years. It's just now, when we are so digitally integrated, that is has become so much easier for them.
You either trust your government or you dont. If you dont trust the current admin, elect a new one.
I recommend reading "A Man Called Intrepid [amazon.com]". It details the beginning of the spy game, and how it dramatically turned the second world war around. The burden on our intelligence forces is great. The responsibility even greater. Have you elected the government you trust to use this intelligence infrastructure properly? Don't blame the telcos, blame those who are abusing the info.
Re:A Good Thing (tm) (Score:4, Insightful)
You either trust your government or you dont. If you dont trust the current admin, elect a new one.
What? No, these options are unacceptable. I choose to not trust any administration and insist that the power to break the law and then provide yourself with retroactive immunity should not be granted to government.Re:A Good Thing (tm) (Score:5, Insightful)
No one has yet shown why pre-9/11 intelligence infrastructure was not or is not good enough. The simple fact is that it is and was a workable and competent system, replete with oversight and check and balances. The current government failed to utilize it correctly, or twisted the information that it fed them in order to create public support for a war that was not needed, and to create support for taking away our rights and freedoms. This is how repression works.
The more that you and others begin to believe that this illegal intelligence system is 'needed' the easier it is for the government to take away even MORE of our rights.
You must be new here? The news agencies are reporting lately of more and more intelligence that was ignored or twisted into lies to mislead the public, and not just the US public, but the world public. They could have bought Saddam off. They had multiple chances to arrest Osama. They KNEW there were not WMDs. Is the picture becoming any clearer? This current Administration twisted the truth, manipulated the news, and broke the law to create an environment where you, and others like you would simply roll over and let it happen. There are more than a few scary comparisons to pre-WWII Germany.
The pre-9/11 intelligence infrastructure was and is functionally good enough. More is not needed, and only erodes the rights they claim to be protecting. You are a FOOL to believe the claims of the same people that lied to you to get you to support a war that is illegal, and was TOTALLY unnecessary.
I was depressed about this... (Score:5, Funny)
When 11% is "good enough" (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, here's why their approval rating is flat on its back at 11%.. cozying up to big telecom, while the people scream for their 4th amendment rights. Take that, rule of law. What's an industry-wide get out of jail free card cost these days, anyway?
Now that this is over, they can go back to offending Turkey and China.
Mail your congress person, then post here. (Score:3, Interesting)
You have to be vocal. "./" the congressional in boxes!!
Contact your representative, THEN post to Slashdot (Score:5, Informative)
It's easy. If you don't know who to contact or how to phrase your objection use this link:
https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&id=727&page=UserAction [aclu.org]
Note that you can modify the letter template before you hit send if you don't agree with all of the text or wish to add points of your own.
There is another informational article on Salon [salon.com].
(*) Does not apply to non-US citizens. (Although nothing actually stops you from mailing them anyway.)
Republican = Suck (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, he sure made that one a reality.
Republican = Democrat = Suck (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Telco immunity gives *Bush* immunity (Score:5, Insightful)
The courts, however, especially at the level of the Circuit Courts, are a different story.
The telco immunity provisions in this legislation are to keep the White House from being found (as part of some telco trial) to have broken the law. It's got little to do with protecting the telcos other than as a way to sell it to the public.
Glenn Greenwald over at Salon had a good interview with the EFF's lead counsel in the ATT/NSA/let's-just-snoop-the-whole-backbone trial [salon.com] that explains this quite well.
This is all about closing off the courts to examination of Executive Branch violations of the Constitution. Which is why it's actually a much, much bigger deal than most people seem to understand.
That's it (Score:2)
Kill every one of the cowardly treasonous bastards.
Ever wonder who they spied on? (Score:2)
Do you think it might have included members of congress?
Historically, this is one corrupt group of people. Has Bush got the drop on enough key players, that he can win the push-and-shove when he needs to?
I saw this in Berlin recently. (Score:2, Insightful)
The right balance between freedom and protection? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And yet another argument... (Score:3, Interesting)
Those of you wanting real tinfoil hats, should download Waste, I2P, and install them in a hidden truecrypt volume.
But protesting against this abuse and voting for a privacy-supporting candidate is mandatory.
Dear Congress, (Score:3, Insightful)
Start doing your jobs.
Sincerely,
The Citizens of the United States
Key quote (Score:3, Insightful)
extends our Constitution beyond American soil to our enemies who want to cut the heads off Americans,
Actually, that's more like extending our laws beyond American soil. The Constitution can't even be extended past the executive branch these days, much less beyond our borders.
No susrprise. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it seems like it's business as usual for the rubber stamp Congress. Just another obvious sign that we're really under single party rule.
The Republicans and Democrats create a good illusion of opposition by criticizing each other verbally, and staging a few bitter debates about BS issues like flag burning, prayer in schools and abortion. When it comes to important issues like civil liberties, imperialistic military crusades, out of control government spending, immigration and globalization however, they happily work together in the noble spirit of bipartisanship to screw over the average U.S. citizen.
The only wasted vote is one cast for Republicans or Democrats. It's a vote against civil liberties, a vote to endorse the wars, and a vote to continue all of the other disastrous policies that our government is pursuing.
New terrorism tool (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Excuse me. I think we can manage to keep ourselves "safe" without sanctioning a big business / government conspiracy that systematically deprives us of our 4th amendment rights.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If we let the army patrol the streets and ground all flights indefinitely, think of how many lives we can save!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Now, it is legal to fart in the Capitol Building. You fart in there.
They pass a law saying it is illegal to fart in the Capitol Building, pre-dating the bill, so you are arrested. Nuh-huh-huh.
Ex Post Facto means literally "After the fact".
Case in point: Indiana Chicken 'rapist' [vegsource.com]
He was tried under animal cruelty statues and theft. Note at that time there was no bestiality law in effect, so Indiana could not try him on a law that did not exist at the time of said cr