Telecom Amnesty Foes On the Move 363
ya really notes a blog posting up at Wired reporting that foes of the Telecom Amnesty Bill have mounted a campaign on Barack Obama's own website. Though the group was created only days ago, on June 25, it has grown to be the fifth largest among 7,000 such groups, just short of Women for Obama. Although it is widely known that Obama changed his stance from opposing telecom immunity to supporting it, many have not given up hope of getting him to switch once again. Meanwhile, left-leaning bloggers and libertarian activists have joined forces to raise $325,000 in the fight against the legislation. "Their Blue America PAC is already targeting House Democrats who voted for the bill, including placing a full-page ad in the Washington Post [an image appears in the Wired story] slamming House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who claimed credit for creating the so-called compromise bill. The coalition plans to follow-up with a Ron Paul-style money bomb, which will be used to target key Senators..."
Wait a minute... (Score:2, Funny)
A slashdot story where *Democrats* are the bad guy? Did I wake up in the Bizzaro universe???
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If it makes you feel any better, the inherent assumption is that the Republicans are too far gone to be worth trying to convince.
Barack Obama (Score:4, Insightful)
This is what happens when someone promises intangible things and bases their entire campaign upon promising 'change' and 'hope,' two things which mean whatever you want, and mean different things to different people.
Too bad he couldn't actually give real promises and expectations other than 'hope' this and 'change' that.
Bloody sheep. You all deserve the hell you're creating for us.
Re:Barack Obama (Score:5, Interesting)
It was bound to happen. Reading the "walks-on-water" posts by supporters on various websites has been a laugh. Who really believes in election-year promises anyway? The democrats walked away from their traditional base of labor and minorities during the Clinton administration, but the younger voters don't remember that. Both parties are now firmly tucked into their respective corporate pockets and neither one represents the interests of the average voter. Oil and finance on one side, media and entertainment on the other, both marching in lockstep toward corporate-controlled fascism.
The only thing Obama (or anyone else) could do to impress me is tell the far left/right to f*ck off, but since they're the ones controlling their respective parties, it ain't gonna happen. The other parties are non-entities locked into unrealistic idealism. Until we get a viable 3rd party that actually considers the constitution a relevant document and the needs of the individual voters over special interest groups, it's all downhill from here.
In the meantime, grab the popcorn and keep filling out your bullshit bingo cards. Actually, can anyone suggest rules for a fascism bingo game? That would be fun. Papers please!
Re:Barack Obama (Score:4, Funny)
If you are calling pelosi and dean the "far left" you need to go back to your comfort zone reading Ann Coulter and watching the Oreilly factor.
Far left, in the US. (Score:2)
Yeah right. You got extreme right and extremist right and that is it.
Far left in the US, what a joke.
Oh and what you are basically saying is that Obama should become yet another middle of the roader, neither left nor right. That doesn't work, it only leads to the slow ruin the US is currently experiencing.
It doesn't really matter if a country is run by the left or the right as long as they stick to it. Try to appease everyone and you end up with a complete mess.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Somehow, he's "the one".
Re:Barack Obama (Score:4, Funny)
Cut them some slack, after eight years of Bush anyone who can string a sentence together on their own looks pretty damn impressive.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In the meantime, grab the popcorn and keep filling out your bullshit bingo cards. Actually, can anyone suggest rules for a fascism bingo game? That would be fun. Papers please!
It could be similar to "BLING BLING"
http://www.blacknews.com/pr/blingblinggame101.html [blacknews.com]
"Players become adventurers in an inner city setting, trying to gather up as much money and property as possible in the 30 to 60 minutes that it takes to play."
Change that to "power" and "information", and there you go.
Or you could just play the college ghetto version of fascist interrogation.
Player1: "What is you name?"
Player2: "..."
Player1: "LIAR!"
Player 1 thus wins a free /slap at Player2.
Re:Barack Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Your post illustrates perfectly why nothing will ever change. You understand that the two major parties are hopeless, but this healthy cynicism doesn't translate into any form of action whatsoever (even simply pulling the lever for another party).
You criticize third-parties for being "too idealistic"... but then describe your desired alternative in terms of idealism! So what does "viable" really mean, then? The Libertarian Party over the past 10 years has streamlined its platform to cut out the extreme elements, and has built to the point of this year having former a U.S. congressman and senator debating for its Presidential nomination. They'll have ballot access in 49 if not all 50 states.
If that's not "viable", then I suppose your definition of "viable" is really, "They must be one vote away from winning, so that I can jump on the bandwagon at the last second and take credit for it all along". Even that might be too generous. It's more likely that "viable" means, "They've already won, and now I'm going to focus on criticizing why they suck now."
It's the same mentality as a pirate saying that they would of course pay for all their video games, if only publishers would completely do away with all copy protections. That's a disingenuous argument, because you: (1) know that they won't, and (2) wouldn't really pay for all your games even if they did. You likewise set the bar for supporting a third-party at some level unlikely to be met, and would probably just criticize any third-party just like the big two if they ever did meet it.
Re:Barack Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Forget this "lesser of 2 evils" crap and vote for someone who you like.
The goal isn't to vote for who you think will win, you don't get points for picking the right one.
Yes the guy you voted for probably won't get in but he might get say 5%.
and next election people saw that he got a noticeable percentage and some of the sheep who think voting for someone who isn't going to win is somehow a waste might throw in their votes as well.
Then the next perhaps someone who you'd actually like to see in charge might get 10%, the next election even more.
If you vote for someone you don't really want to see in charge then you're screwing up the system.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This idea might work if so many people did not rely on the nightly news to tell them what the candidates are about. I am resigned to taking the slow route as you describe and spreading the words about candidates that are going to be good for the country or whose beliefs are good for our government and the people. It won't be until MSM is doing the same things that we'll see change in the US political system.
When we can show who got contributions and who changed their votes on immunity for telecomms and how
Re:Barack Obama (Score:4, Insightful)
Or try to change the two evils? (Score:5, Insightful)
You'll notice that none of the people who are angry at Obama over this scrap are trying to get McCain to change his position. For most of those people, it's because they support Obama. They don't consider their vote for him to be a waste, but they consider this move to be a bad decision. "If you vote for someone you don't really want to see in charge then you're screwing up the system." Well, these people want to see Obama in charge, and so they want him to hear what they think. Except for the real hypocrites here, of course: the McCain supporters, who look for any way to paint Obama as not being true to his message, while McCain has been flip-flopping so much in the past three months that he could almost try out for the U.S. Olympic gymnastics team.
So what are they doing now? They're doing kinda what you're supposed to be doing in a Democratic society. Rather than sitting around whining about the evils of the two parties, they mounting a strong campaign to let their selected nominee know that he is not representing their interests with this decision and are trying to get him to see the light. You know, they're participating in government. Rather than just putting in a vote for some libertarian candidate and saying, "Well, my guy didn't win, so you can't blame me," they're actually trying to change the landscape. That's what activists do, y'know - they're active.
To keep spouting this adolescent "lesser of two evils" crap is getting tiresome. In this election, there is A LOT OF FUCKING DIFFERENCE between the two candidates. There is a lot of difference in the way they want to run the war, there is a lot of difference in the way they want to run domestic issues. I apologize that Americans are still a bunch of sheep who can't get John Wayne or Eric Cartman or whoever your perfect candidate is supposed to be elected to the White House, but in this election, a vote for Obama against a vote for McCain is seriously going to mean something, and I'm sorry that the 25%-less-of-a-tool candidate that the DNC is running still isn't enough for your tastes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
John Lennon (Score:4, Informative)
This is what happens when someone promises intangible things and bases their entire campaign upon promising 'change' and 'hope,'
John Lennon nailed it:
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't like John Lennon. He was an idealist, and like all other idealists, forgot that reality did not allow his beautiful utopian plans to come into existance, and he is responsible for a great deal of vapid people running around spouting politics that were great fourty years ago but are stagnating now. And I'm not even sure half of what the hippies had to say was even worth listening to, let alone good.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they started a war.
I don't think people have that kind of intestinal fortitude anymore.
I blame television.
In the end I think John Lennon understood that the odds against his utopia were stacked against him, I think that's exactly why he was so vocal. Besides who else was better schooled in the power of music to bring about change.
To be completely honest I feel that if John were alive today he'd be a conservative. Don't ever
Re: (Score:2)
Ah - so you'd rather have a politician who promises specific things and breaks them after the election (e.g. 'No more taxes!')?
Wake up and smell the coffee - the only difference is that someone has the honesty of saying in advance he doesn't know how much CAN actually be changed past all goings on on Capitol Hill.
The other candidate may promise whatever specific things (like, say, 'No more taxes!' - but you don't have any recourse if he breaks them after the election.
Jesse Ventura the only one I still believe in (Score:3, Insightful)
Obama said up-front exactly what 'change' is (Score:5, Interesting)
...if you weren't reading his books or listening to his speeches (as opposed to the sound bites), I suppose you could miss it. The "new kind of politics" he discusses isn't a change in what he as a Democrat supports; the change is in how he goes about supporting it.
If you've been paying attention to American politics lately, you'll notice that you've got the Left and the Right, and they pretty much hate each other. The Left paints the Right as being a bunch of religious war-mongering nutjobs who hate people having freedoms their religion proscribes, and the Right paints the Left as being a bunch of new-age peacenick nutjobs with no regard for personal accountability who hate their religion.
The 'change' Obama speaks of isn't in terms of what he votes for, but how he gets support for it. No more using religion as a wedge -- or trying to avoid it altogether. No more using fear to try to drive votes ("but the terrrorists will get you!"). Read A Call To Renewal [barackobama.com], and appreciate how its message different from the way Democratic politicians have behaved in the past. Obama is promising a presidency which is serious about the "uniter, not a divider" thing, even while still effectively backing the Democrats' agenda -- by coaching that agenda in terms that speak to more than just the Democratic base. For someone young enough to have never seen American politics that aren't divisive, that's genuine change.
The 'hope' Obama speaks of is getting past all this petty divisiveness and reversing the actions which have destroyed our reputation in the world. Except for the getting-past-the-divisiveness part, that's something all Democrats want to do. This is neither unrealistic or poorly defined.
So there you are -- real promises and expectations, described by 'hope' this and 'change' that.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't mind me, just channelling Robert Heinlein again.
Re:This guy has a point. (Score:5, Insightful)
A saner course of action would be to vote for a small party, or express your disgust by not voting at all. Don't be part of the problem by keeping the duofascists in power.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I'm going with the third party vote as I have in the past. No because I'm disgusted but because it's what I believe.
Re: (Score:2)
Low voter turnout in the USA is regularly interpreted as people being digusted and disillusioned of the system. A politically correct name to put it is "voter apathy".
Of course not. Votes for small parties are not protest votes at all. Protest votes are mainly voting for "the other big party".
Re:This guy has a point. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This guy has a point. (Score:4, Insightful)
Is the goal to express disgust? Or to make someone lose? Those aren't the goals. The goal is to give the power to those who would use it properly, to select a prsident, and to decide which parties have enough support to be given the recognition and funding to participate in the debate.
Any party that gets 5% of the vote gets federal funding and is likely to be in the debates. Since 50% of the people don't vote at all, that's a lot of potential for the green or libertarian parties to get noticed. Heck, if those 50% just voted completely randomly, it would be a landslide change in politics.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Any party that gets 5% of the vote gets federal funding and is likely to be in the debates.
BS. Ron Paul got higher than 5% and his existence was barely acknowledged.
That isn't going to stop me from voting for a third party this time around, but I'm not kidding myself about what my vote will change.
Re:This guy has a point. (Score:4, Insightful)
Ron Paul is about as close to a libertarian as you can get, and at some times has been.
However, the major media affirmed, about 2 elections ago, that they would never again give the Libertarian party or any of their candidates coverage, even if they won the presidential election. That was in the words of a network representative (I'm thinking NBC), in explanation of why they were not covering the Libertarians, at a time when inexplicably no media was giving Libertarians coverage.
So the Ron Paul comment is right on target. He had the most support of all the candidates, both cash and personal -- and yet was excluded from the debates. He also had votes in New Hampshire which registered zero votes for him, and he had control of the Nevada Caucus, which was shut down rather than allow him to have support going into the Republican convention.
This is called election fraud. It goes hand in hand with the media fraud. In addition, the denial of Ron Paul in the debates made the Fox News Fair'n'Balanced(tm) debates into a primetime multi-hour infomercial. In other words, it was a major illegal campaign donation to all those who were given coverage. Of course, even calling it the debates also violates truth in advertising laws, but this can only go so far.
I should note, that in line with this I fully expect Obama will not win, even if he gets 96% of the votes.
Combine this with the abdication of legislative power to the president, and the abdication of constitutional interpretation to the president, and basically what we are seeing is that though most of the world is moving away from dictatorships, the US is becoming a secret-police, torturing, constitutionless dictatorship.
That said, it isn't worth fighting against. Rather, other countries are moving away from it because such countries destroy themselves. They simultaneously make deadly enemies, and destroy their economy, so that an enemy army can invade and destroy what's left.
So rather than fighting against it, it's more worthwhile to simply flee to a country that is a *land of the free* and *home of the brave*. The US has been there, done that, and don't look like it's even lookin' back. For what it's worth, it is my opinion that the handwriting is on the wall that we're becoming the world's next Iraq. To quote the evangelists, our 400 years of biblical testing are done, and we probably are found way wanting.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Engrish is my forth language, but I remember an old saying....
Cutting your nose off to spite your face
Re:This guy has a point. (Score:5, Interesting)
A saner course of action would be to vote for a small party, or express your disgust by not voting at all. Don't be part of the problem by keeping the duofascists in power.
actually, that's not the saner thing. That doesn't guarantee their defeat in the same way voting for their strongest opponent does.
Or, here's a crazy thought, instead of getting pissed enough over this to want the other guy to win out of spite, perhaps historical voting records regarding civil liberties for Obama [aclu.org] and McCain [aclu.org] would be useful. I'm very upset with Obama over this (Unity is all well and good, but not at the expense of the rule of law), but in no way is McCain a better choice where civil liberties are concerned.
Yes, that's the ACLU, and lots of people strongly disagree with them for various reasons. Just take their spin into account and make your own decision.
Re:This guy has a point. (Score:5, Informative)
Thanks to this man I will never believe again, and I will vote republican across the board, even as a staunch progressive libertarian, until the democrats wake from their sleep.
And yet, looking through your previous postings, it is obvious that you ARE a republican, not a libertarian. Nice move. You are worthy of working with W or Rove.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, this guy sounds as crooked as Bob Barr. I suggest he should vote libertarian after all. I, on the other hand, am a libertarian supporter -- but I cannot support Bob Barr.
I will probably write in a name, just to be able to say, "yes, I voted, and no, my vote doesn't count for anything."
Re:This guy has a point. (Score:4, Informative)
Assuming he doesn't already.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Thanks to this man I will never believe again, and I will vote republican across the board, even as a staunch progressive libertarian, until the democrats wake from their sleep.
Well now that sounds like a really mature and intelligent way to deal with it.
If he's going to be nothing more than a sock puppet for crypto-fascist republicans and their propaganda ministers at fox news, we are screwed either way this election. It's best to keep slapping the one party which MAY have some virtue left until it rouses at last and gains some righteous fury!
Re:This guy has a point. (Score:5, Interesting)
When did begrudgingly accepting a compromise mean "being a sock puppet"? I swear, you people have this out of proportion.
The immunity offered by this bill is retroactive only; it does not extend into the future. People who say Obama is pro-warrantless-wiretapping don't know WTF they're talking about; he's supporting a bill which will make it illegal in the future, but the only way to get that bill passed for the future (with a President who's sworn to veto anything w/o the provision and a Republican party with enough votes to prevent that veto from being overridden) is to forgive what happened in the past.
Frankly, with all the rancor on both sides, this country needs a little forgiveness if we're going to heal some of the hatred between the Right and Left.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry 'bout the formatting; messed up my closing italics tag above.
Explicitly and unambiguously illegal, that is, in such a way that the telcos can't be told that they're going to be able to weasel out of it again.
Re:This guy has a point. (Score:4, Insightful)
How about letting it expire and acting on making it illegal in the next term?
Re:This guy has a point. (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Right now, the Democrats have a small majority in the House and a single-vote majority in the Senate. An Obama victory would bring Democratic gains in both houses. In fact, even those who believe McCain will win invariably admit that the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate will grow larger.
Plus, Bush has done so much to tilt the balance of powers in favor of the executive branch, that it would be fairly easy for a President Obama and Democratic Congress to overturn this FISA law.
And, (this is important, so pay attention), this FISA bill only gives civil immunity to the telecoms. They could still be charged with a civil rights violation by an Obama Administration Department of Justice. In fact, everything Obama wrote about Constitutional Law while at the UofC (we were there at the same time) indicates that his view of privacy is very strong, and that he'd be willing to use the DOJ for this purpose (which happens to be the purpose for which it was intended).
IF this FISA bill passes with the immunity intact I will be disappointed, but it's not going to make me suddenly believe that a John McCain administration could be anything but a bigger disaster than Bush. Remember, all the same neocon extremists that have been whispering in George Bush's ear will be shouting in John McCain's ear (the good one). And because of McCain's imagined "tough-guy" image and hot temper, he'll be very vulnerable to the cowboy-culture suggestions that the neocons have used so successfully to manipulate weak leaders like Bush and McCain.
Re:This guy has a point. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Carter pardoned Nixon before he was ever charged with any crimes.
That would be Ford you're thinking of.
Poppa Bush pardoned 6 people involved with Iran Contra, 1 conviction, 3 guilty pleas, and 2 pending cases.
To quote the US Constitution, the President shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States. It's not at all clear that he can pardon someone who has not been legally found to have committed an offense (that is, pled or been found guilty), someone for whom one c
Re:This guy has a point. (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck forgiveness.
I'm a lot more inclined to put some heads on some pikes as a warning to future generations. That'll work much better than "passing a law" as to "make it illegal in the future"... guess what, it's illegal NOW. Why do you think they're asking for immunity?
The whole problem is that the current administration has run rough-shot over the laws by violating them and then thumbing their noses at us and show us how little teeth the current batch of laws has over them. And your solution is to pass a law? Screw that. I'm all in favor of taking a tier 1 telcom company and burning it to the ground so maybe next time they'll actually protect the citizens rights instead of kowtowing to a schmuck president. After that, THEN pass a law and poeple will actually take notice.
They had a duty to us, the citizens, and they screwed us. Fuck 'em. And unfortunately, they're just a poor substitute for the REAL criminals.
d
Re:This guy has a point. (Score:5, Insightful)
What's most sickening is how so many people are SCREAMING to have this bill blocked, yet the politicians are actively voting against the wishes of their constituency. They're not even pretending to care anymore.
Re:This guy has a point. (Score:5, Interesting)
Right. 2 of the criminal corporations that were treated the way you say are the asbestos industry and the tobacco industry.
Workers were exposed to asbestos for decades, while asbestos companies like Johns-Mansville knew that it was causing lung cancer, according to medical reports in their files that came out after they were sued, but they didn't warn those workers. When it all came out, they were hit with millions of dollars in damages, and went bankrupt. You don't see much asbestos around any more.
The tobacco industry is unfortunately so wealthy and politically powerful that they're almost (but not quite) untouchable. They got hit with millions of dollars in damages. The public health people who took them on were pretty smart, and they got money to pay for anti-tobacco education, publicity campaigns, etc. In a big court case, huge amounts of documents get subpoenaed, but the defendants insist on making them confidential as one of the conditions for settling (see the IBM antitrust case). This time, the public health people insisted on making the documents public, and put them in a great database, which revealed their devious methods, and exposed the people we trusted who betrayed us (search Google for "tobacco documents").
Unfortunately, the corporate executives didn't go to jail, even though they killed more people (400,000/year from cigarettes) than Osama bin Laden ever will.
Given the sentiments you expressed, you would probably enjoy reading Ted Rall http://www.gocomics.com/rallcom/ [gocomics.com], although you probably do already. He was warning us from the very first about Obama.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is true today (in the west) but it was not true when I was growing up in the 60's and tobacoo companies were actively breeding plants for higher nicotine content. Even in the 80's tobacoo companies were still putting out "scientific research" showing smoking was harmless and non-addictive.
In other words tobacco companies hid the truth from people for decades and actively spread propoganda and misinformation to discredit any scientist w
Re:This guy has a point. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm in complete agreement, my friend. I'm afraid that every few years we're going to have to take one (or more) of these rapacious corporations and slam them up against a wall a few times, just to show them that we (citizens, consumers) are in charge, not them.
In the next ten years, we're going to see the beginnings of warfare between corporate interests and the interests of the people. With the behavior of the RIAA, I'd say that the shooting war has already started.
Not yet a shooting war. (Score:4, Interesting)
If you want to understand a shooting war, consider the war between ITT (vis a vis Pinochet) and Chile, when Allende nationalized their copper mines. Or consider the war between ITT and the US, during WWII, when ITT was making the German bombers, and the US bombed the German planes.
Or consider the war between the World Bank and Zaire, when Mobutu fled to France with all those IMF loans, Kabila declined to make payments on Mobutu's stolen funds, and within *3 months* there was a mobilized army led by the son of the IMF's representative to Zaire, which kept a shooting war going until *3 months* after Kabila said "okay, we'll start paying on Mobutu's money."
Note, too, that in both the case of Allende and Kabila, they were murdered, probably just to show the people that the corporations, not the citizens, are in charge.
Corporations are all too ready to commit murder and mass murder to claim power. Think before you act.
Re:This guy has a point. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is illegal now. Why not leave it that way?
Are you so naive to think that electoral calculations did not play a part in Obama's stance?
Re:This guy has a point. (Score:4, Informative)
Jefferson wept (Score:5, Insightful)
the only way to get that bill passed for the future (with a President who's sworn to veto anything w/o the provision and a Republican party with enough votes to prevent that veto from being overridden) is to forgive what happened in the past.
Frankly, with all the rancor on both sides, this country needs a little forgiveness
So the message is: Your masters can get away with anything.
No wonder Cheney can hunt the most dangerous game with impunity, he knows damn well that even if he shoots people in the face, there's nothing the People will do about it. That would mean the "left" would "won"! Can't have that!
Slaves to their "sides", sheeps, argh!
Re:This guy has a point. (Score:5, Insightful)
The immunity offered by this bill is retroactive only; it does not extend into the future. People who say Obama is pro-warrantless-wiretapping don't know WTF they're talking about; he's supporting a bill which will make it illegal in the future, but the only way to get that bill passed for the future (with a President who's sworn to veto anything w/o the provision and a Republican party with enough votes to prevent that veto from being overridden) is to forgive what happened in the past.
Why does congress need to pass any bill with an immunity provision? Wait for the next president, and then pass the law. It is only six months away (Thank God!) Whoever it is, the next president will be an improvement over W. Deal with any other FISA issues that may need to be handled (although IMHO FISA is fine as is, if anything, the standards for getting a wiretap need to be tightened, but I'm not holding out hope for that in the current climate of fear.)
Another important issue is that someone needs to be held accountable for the illegal wiretapping. It is it not the telcos, then it should be the NSA and DOJ. Make the agency directors who pressured the telcos (and possibly the White House officials who ordered them to do so criminally responsible for abuse of power and for creating illegal wiretaps. Then and only then can the telcos be let off the hook.
In other words, someone need to be held accountable.
Re:This guy has a point. (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you sure? Someone else in this thread has already posted a link to McCain's ACLU scorecard, and he's been vocally pro-wiretapping from the beginning.
Re:This guy has a point. (Score:4, Interesting)
Frankly, with all the rancor on both sides, this country needs a little forgiveness if we're going to heal some of the hatred between the Right and Left.
Well, forgiveness is certainly what this bill is all about. FISA courts, as laid out in past, continue with or without this bill. There's no reason for the bill at all except for the forgiveness you're looking for.
However, that's not how forgiveness works. You can't legislate it. You can, however, as this bill shows, attempt to legislate an amnesty giveaway to a bunch of unrepentant crooks.
What this country actually needs is justice. You commit a crime, you admit it and accept responsibility for it, and then you get forgiveness. I don't see any responsibility being taken, here -- I see a whole lot of weaseling out and not paying for things, which has been the way of life, to an absurd extreme, of this administration, and it friends. It's also been a way of life for AT&T.
What was done during Bush's years has been illegal, and there should be justice. AT&T was paid to break the law, so they did. Why sweep that under the rug and pretend that doing so will make things better? There's no reason for immunity going forward or back.
Re:This guy has a point. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is one of those compromises that should not be made.
What things are we going to allow corporations to do on the presidents assurance that it is legal? Which amendments will we stop at?
It is important that the message is sent that the president can't simple say "this is legal" and congress makes it so retro-actively.
The compromise is at least as bad as the one that made Judge "torture memos" Alito attorney general. There are situations where a compromise is warranted, and the lesser evil, but there are others where the compromise still leans too far towards "strong executive" (That's the PC word for dictatorship I think) and must not be agreed to.
This isn't compromise in the sense that you get the freeway I badly need, I get the bridge to nowhere.
Re:This guy has a point. (Score:5, Insightful)
So let the bill be vetoed, why is passing a bad law better than having a better law vetoed. Can someone explain why we need this law anyway. Let's be honest here, the terrorist threat to America is the biggest hype job ever pulled on the American people. I mean we have had 2 major terrorist attempts on American soil (on the same building even) from foreign nationals in what, our entire histoy. Their is enough questionable information regarding 9/11 that I don't think we will ever truely know what happened or who was involved.
But that day was also the day the 4th went from a celebration to a time of mourning.
Re:This guy has a point. (Score:4, Funny)
Two major terrorist attempts THAT YOU KNOW OF.
Re:This guy has a point. (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, with all the rancor on both sides, this country needs a little forgiveness
This may be true. But forgiveness applied to someone who's in denial is called "enabling". It just encourages them to do it some more. The first step to forgiveness is a confession. When the telcoms publicly tell us exactly what they have done that may have violated the law or the privacy of the people whose communications they handle, once they are willing to stand up and accept responsibility for their own actions, then we can discuss forgiveness.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Frankly, with all the rancor on both sides, this country needs a little forgiveness if we're going to heal some of the hatred between the Right and Left.
We don't want the Right and Left to get along, because then we'll end up with an even worse "both parties are the same" problem.
The problem right now is that the stuff they disagree over - the stuff that wins elections - is mostly a distraction from the real issues.
The parties hating each other is great - it keeps our broken system somewhat in check. The problem is that the parties aren't really Right/Left. They don't win elections based on philosophy and intelligent debate, but on emotions and reactionar
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It sets a precedent.
If an entity can do something illegal because it happens to coincide with some would-be dictator's agenda, that's one less thing stopping other entities from breaking laws in order to get favours from future would-be dictators.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You haven't truly understood the implications of a precedent saying that companies can violate the law and Congress will retroactively make it OK.
There is no need to pass a bill saying that it is illegal in the future - it was already illegal. That is why there are lawsuits. And this bill doesn't keep any future Congress from passing a bill retroactively saying next time, "That was OK after all, but it is really not next time."
Now compare to passing no bill. If they pass no bill then the lawsuits go forw
Re:This guy has a point. (Score:4, Informative)
It's not factually wrong; it's just... selectively reflective of the truth.
The FISA bill allows warrantless wiretapping of international calls made by American citizens only under emergency protocols. It allows warrantless wiretapping of folks who aren't American citizens pretty much indiscriminately. That certainly does make the large-scale warrantless wiretapping of communications by American citizens which has allegedly occurred under Bush (we can't tell, of course, because the courts are being blocked from investigating the matter in the name of national security... which I certainly agree is bogus) thoroughly illegal on an ongoing basis.
Re:This guy has a point. (Score:5, Insightful)
So, to get back at him, you're going to "vote republican across the board".
Son, you need to think it through. You've got a good heart but you're head is spinning a little too fast. I say this from love.
Re: (Score:2)
Other than calling the populace 'bloody sheep' there was no name calling. There was certainly no distortion. He hit the nail on the head with regards to Obama.
Re:Barack Obama (Score:4, Informative)
From what I can tell (Score:5, Interesting)
it's now the fourth largest.
If you believe in this, go join the group. It takes about thirty seconds to sign up, and there's only 2000 more people needed to make it the third largest. I've seen more comments than that on many political posts, so I have little doubt that we can, in theory, rustle up that many people.
Re: (Score:2)
Still better than nothing. We probably won't change his mind or get anyone to notice, but we certainly won't if we don't try.
Wow! (Score:2, Funny)
Campaign, fight, target, bomb... it sounds like a war for our liberties.
On an unrelated aside... 7,000 groups? That's a lot. Someone let me know when the group count IS OVER 9000!!!!!
Logo for the summary is misleading. (Score:2)
As a person who grew up in a democratic household, i would be remiss if I didn't request you put the proper party logo for today's democratic party. The Elephant with 3 stars.
Re:Logo for the summary is misleading. (Score:5, Funny)
As a person who grew up in a democratic household...
You got to vote for who would be mom and dad?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How about the mythical beast with an elephant's head on one end and the head of an ass on the other? Because since the corporations own both the Democrats and Republicans, we now have a one party system with two wings, the Democrat wing and the Republican wing, both of which are beholden to the multinational (foreign) corporations and neither of which is beholden to "we, the people".
When someone who can't vote has more influence over a representative than a voter he is supposed to represent, you no longer h
Widely Known (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Or are you one of the people who think it's all part of a Secret Master Plan (TM)? That Obama works in misterious ways?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, because he has not said or done anything in support of telecom amnesty. Disappointing people by not taking an active role in the fight is not the same as supporting something.
Re:Widely Known (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, because he has not said or done anything in support of telecom amnesty. Disappointing people by not taking an active role in the fight is not the same as supporting something.
Actually, guilt by negligence is punishable in many cases by sentences equally harsh to active participation in a crime.
In this case the crime is high treason (im not talking about the immunity, i'm talking about the fact this "stops the illegal spying" by making it legal and letting it continue)
Re: (Score:2)
Disappointing people by not taking an active role in the fight is not the same as supporting something.
And that's the moral high ground you hold your presidential candidate to? No wonder the US is scrapping the bottom of the barrel any more. You are aware of the term complacency? Last time I checked it wasn't a virtue.
Re:Widely Known (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Granted, McCain has switched sides on some issues, but at least the waffling has been over the course of years (or decades!), rather than months. He at least can plausibly claim "I know more now than I did then"
Re:Widely Known (Score:5, Insightful)
Although it is widely known that Obama changed his stance from opposing telecom immunity to supporting it, many have not given up hope of getting him to switch once again.
Now don't get me wrong, he has taken a weak position and plans to vote for the (bad) bill even if they aren't able to have the provision removed
Before he had said he was absolutely against retroactive telecom immunity. Now he says he will vote for the bill even if it has the immunity in it. It is that simple. He flip-flopped and is exactly what the summary says. Did I miss something?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
He flip-flopped and is exactly what the summary says. Did I miss something?
Yes. The summary says "supports telecom amnesty", which is (at best) an exaggeration. The spin makes things sound more like maliciousness than ambivalence or incompetence. (I don't like his lack of backbone on this issue, but it's 'just' a lack of backbone, i.e. it's not like he would start campaigning in support of telecom amnesty.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm all for this... (Score:2)
but I'd rather not give money to a "Democrat" PAC. I wouldn't give money to a Republican PAC, either. If they separated this issue out from the rest of their position I'd be all over it.
I hate politics.
Good idea, but can it work? (Score:2, Insightful)
A lot of times, when laws are o the verge of being passed, these groups pop up to try and get them shot down. However, how often have they ever really worked? In a lot of cases, either the politician doesn't listen/care or there isn't enough support to make anyone's head turn.
Not to mention, we look back at the story about having evidence that Representatives that took kickbacks to change their votes and have to wonder if they will listen when they have com
Re: (Score:2)
the so called "moderates" (Fox News's word for crypto-fascists) he's trying to woo by quietly supporting this bill will not pay his bills.
This group draws attention to his outright lies, and has already resulted in announcements by several people that they will cease giving money, time, and votes to his campaign.
When you're financed by your party's base, and you give that base a golden shower, don't be surprised if they leave for greener pastures.
He is repeating inflated security concerns (Score:5, Interesting)
Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike
Sad, I thought that he was brighter than that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:He is repeating inflated security concerns (Score:5, Insightful)
AT&T's take (Score:5, Interesting)
AT&T took down their ad, but it was pretty funny in a sick sort of way. If you didn't catch their new ad, it was on their bill-pay site last week. I kept a little archive of it here [readingfordummies.com]. Enjoy.
Reid
Join this group, write your senators (Score:2, Interesting)
Senator Obama's promise to "fix this" when he becomes president is grossly illogical and pompous (not elitist). What if he loses the election? Then what will he be
I can't beleive this (Score:3, Interesting)
More information about the myBO campaign (Score:5, Informative)
Buy the government back? (Score:3, Insightful)
I've got to take issue with raising money for senators so they will vote a particular way. Our taxes pay their salaries so they will vote according to the electorate AND the constitution. Since when did obeying the constitution become a la carte? These people took an oath to uphold it. Now it only applies for the highest bidder.
I think a much more cost-effective measure would be to exercise our constitutional freedoms.
I am a huge patriot, even an Eagle scout. In scouts we took oaths and we held them. We were told our leaders were doing the same. We were told to hold the constitution high, and to believe in our government.
I draw the line at a bidding war for votes. If that really is the situation, then we need to clean house. And senate.
Opportunity for Obama (Score:4, Insightful)
McCain has been in favor of it all along, and is kind of stuck. If he votes for it, he keeps in with the Republican party but loses credibility with the conservatives and "tough on crime" folks. If he votes against it, he gets the conservative and "tough on crime" support, but loses some Republicans. No matter what he does, it's approximately a wash.
If Obama votes for it, he loses in pretty much every way. Republican voters still won't support him over McCain. But if he votes against it, he'll get some credibility with the hard anti-crime, rule-of-law folks. He'll pick up some conservatives, possibly (no guarantees, but it could happen) even the few conservatives remaining in the Republican party.
Where is the ... (Score:3, Funny)
Brewster's Millions "None of the Above" option when you really need it?
Re: (Score:2)
This is an interesting point, except that the telecoms already had a relationship with the NSA, etc.. However, it should be pointed out that at the time, everyone thought invading Iraq was a good idea, too. I don't thing the telecoms are really the bad guys either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Missing the Point (Score:5, Interesting)
Threatening the telecoms with prosecution will encourage them to cooperate with any future investigations into warrantless wiretapping. If they were coerced, I have no problem with granting them immunity based upon their providing testimony in court to that effect.
If, as the Bush administration claims, there was no violation of the law, then no immunity is needed. If they were forced to hand over data, then they aren't guilty and no immunity is needed in this case as well.
Yes, you are! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not prosecute the government for illegally getting the information in the first place?
Prosecute the government? Who is going to prosecute the executive branch for violating a federal law? The Justice Dept, that's who, except they're part of the executive branch, and have already said they don't think the President broke any law*. So prosecution is right out.
Instead, someone could sue the government for violating their civil liberties, except since nobody knows whether or not the government actually spied on them, nobody has the standing to bring such a case against the government.
Thus the civil suits against the telecoms. The ultimate purpose of these suits, other than to redress their wrongs**, is to cause information on exactly what they did and who they tapped on behalf of the government to be revealed in discovery. Thus those who were spied on can know that this happened, and then have legal standing to sue the government. I don't the legal reason why the telecoms suits don't have the same standing issue, I just know that the suits against the government were blocked by the courts immediately due to standing, while the suits against the telecoms weren't.
So you see, the telecom suits are merely a stepping stone to reaching the real target, which is the federal government. This is also why telecom immunity is not about protecting the telecoms, but protecting the government itself. By preventing lawsuits, they're preventing the discovery that could reveal the government's hand. That's why telecom immunity is so reprehensible.
* Ludicrous on its face, since from the President's only words his program performed warantless wire tapping against parties in the U.S., which is unambiguously against the law. It's another case of the "It's not illegal because the President doesn't have to obey the laws" reasoning, which will never stand up in court, but the goal is not to have it tried in court.
** I can appreciate feeling pressured by the feds, but seriously, if they can't even be bothered to show a trumped up warrant, how can you justify cooperating with an obviously illegal act? Qwest didn't, and what terrible consequences befell them for daring to stand up to the government?
Re:About time (Score:5, Informative)
you may have noticed that every House member from Illinois voted against Fisa the other week. Even the Republican, Johnson. He was, in fact, the only Republican to vote against.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
At the expense of the people who feel he won't be "tough on crime."
Nothing except the law that he's about to vote for, which will make it so that his AG can't even bring that cases to court.