Slashdot Log In
House of Representatives To Discuss Wiretapping In Closed Session
Posted by
Soulskill
on Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:01 PM
from the maybe-they-are-trying-to-be-ironic dept.
from the maybe-they-are-trying-to-be-ironic dept.
Nimey brings word that for the first time in 25 years, the US House of Representatives will use a closed-door session to discuss proposed wiretapping legislation. The old legislation expired last month when government officials could not agree on retroactive immunity for the telecommunications providers who assisted with the wiretaps. The most recent version of the bill, proposed by House democrats, does not include telecom immunity. Because of that, President Bush has stated his willingness to veto the bill. The Yahoo article notes, "The closed-door debate was scheduled for late Thursday night, after the House chamber could be cleared and swept by security personnel to make sure there are no listening devices."
Related Stories
[+]
Telecom Immunity -- We're Down to the Wire(tap) 219 comments
The law says telecom providers can't wiretap your phone calls or net traffic, but as long as their taps are legal or they acted in good faith they're already immune from prosecution and lawsuits. That said, your telecom providers are still trying to get Congress to immunize them for cooperating with NSA wiretaps (presumably because the taps were both illegal and done in bad faith). Retroactive immunity wouldn't just mean they get away with it, it would crush our ability as citizens to find out what happened using the power of the courts.
Last month,
Sen. Chris Dodd temporarily stopped the bill, but within days -- probably on Monday -- it's going to be reintroduced, and it's not at all clear it will be stopped again. He'll need strong allies, because he's fighting not just the Bush administration and GOP Senators, but his own party's Sen. Harry Reid and
"AT&T's personal Senator" Jay Rockefeller. So Dodd needs more Senators backing him up, preferably joining a full-blown filibuster on the Senate floor. If you ever want accountability for whatever companies illegally forwarded your data to the NSA, you basically have today and tomorrow to
say
something.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Grant No Immunity. Get Info to ACLU. (Score:4, Informative)
They are also going to decide to prosecute or not [truthout.org]. This is not nearly good enough and it stinks of cover up. Check out what the Wall Street Journal and ACLU have to say about this [slashdot.org].
I wonder if they consider cell phones a listening device [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To argue that Bush has done anything whatsoever to fend off terrorism is a joke. I couldn't care less about the immigration system, but his blatant failings to secure our southern borders stands in direct conflict with the GOP's assertions that we
Re:Grant No Immunity. Get Info to ACLU. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Explain why. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the government requests that you break the law, and you comply, and then you are given immunity for your crimes, then effectively there is no law. The government can then commit any crime it likes (by proxy) and get away with it.
In a civilized society, nobody is above the law, especially the government. Societies where the government is above the law are properly called dictatorships.
Parent
Here's why (criminal prosecution, anyway) (Score:4, Insightful)
If I'm an individual, and I've been contracted to commit a crime by the "government", once I'm granted immunity why wouldn't I tell on everyone? Especially if I'm compelled by a court?
And before you answer, immunity means you can no longer take the 5th as it regards to the crimes you were granted immunity for. This is a standard tactic in mob trials, so the defendants can't plead he 5th. They're granted limited immunity (usually during the trial, or for specific crimes committed) and questioned. Failure to answer results in contempt charges, or perjury if they lie. Immunity doesn't protect you from telling what happened, and in fact makes it easier to find out.
Now, if these people, who have been granted immunity, HAVE NO CONCERN ABOUT PRISON for the crimes they committed, why would they risk 1) committing new crimes (perjury, contempt) or 2) losing their immunity and being retroactively prosecuted (for example, immunity granted on the basis of total cooperation with an investigation).
Of course, in this case it's civil immunity, but the misunderstandings regarding criminal immunity prompted me to post, in order to clarify its value as a tool.
Keep this in mind, a large part of the successful prosecution of criminal enterprises is granting of immunity to key players in order to get information. It works.
Parent
Re:Explain why. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Interesting proposition (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Interesting proposition (Score:5, Funny)
"There's nothing ironic about being stuck in a traffic jam when you're late for something. Unless you're a town planner. If you were a town planner and you were on your way to a seminar of town planners at which you were giving a talk on how you solved the problem of traffic congestion in your area, couldn't get to it because you were stuck in a traffic jam, that'd be well ironic."
"Rain on your wedding day is ironic only if marrying a weatherman and he set the date."
"A no-smoking sign on your cigarette break, that's inconsiderate office management. A no-smoking sign in a cigarette factory - irony."
"Ten thousand spoons? How big is your sink, Alanis? What do you need this knife for - to stab the bloke who keeps leaving spoons all over your house?"
[Thanks to wikipedia for the quotes.]
Parent
Re:Interesting proposition (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Cheers!
--
Vig
Re:Interesting proposition (Score:5, Informative)
How ironic that a dictionary would fail to define irony properly.
Seriously? Incongruity between the actual and the normal/expected result?
That is NOT really irony. For something to be ironic there has to significant force behind the expectation, and the result can't merely be incongrouous it has to be more a contradiction.
If I say 'its a beautiful day' and its actually 'partly cloudy and may be even just a touch chilly' that is not ironic. If it were pouring rain and the floods were rising, that would be ironic.
If I pick up a pen I expect it to work not be dried out, but if its dried out that's not irony. If I specifically chose to pick up the pen with the sticker 'gauranteed never to dry up' and carried it around precisely to avoid the hassle of a dried up pen
Dictionaries often fail to accurately capture the complete meaning of a word, because words are inherently difficult to concisely define with other words. That's no surprise -- the entire point of adding a word to a language is often that other words fail to accurately capture its meaning.
Another example is "underwhelm"; which is defined in one dictionary at least as: "To fail to excite, stimulate, or impress." Again, that doesn't really capture it quite right. If one eats a bagel for breakfast and is not excited stimulated or impressed that doesn't mean one was underwhelmed by it. Its a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one.
To be underwhelmed is not merely to fail to be impressed, but to becognizant of the fact that you have failed to have been impressed. If you ate a bagel and it made no impression on you, if someone asked you about your breakfast, you'd absently say 'it was fine' without 2nd thought; you haven't been underwhelmed. But if you'd sat there eating your bagel and came to the realization that it really wasn't particularly good, that its taste and texture really did nothing for you, then you might come to say that you found it underwhelming.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Interesting proposition (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How ironic that I'm being corrected by someone who doesn't realize that sarcasm is itself defined in terms of being ironic.
>> If I say 'its a beautiful day' and its actually 'partly cloudy and may be even just a touch
>> chilly' that is not ironic. If it were pouring rain and the floods were rising, that would be
>> ironic.
> No, that would be sarcasm.
It would, in fact, be both 'sarcasm' and an 'ironic
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let Freedom Reign (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Let Freedom Reign (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree that there is way too much secrecy and that it is used far too often to protect wrongdoing by government officials, eliminating secret government information would be a disaster. Do you really want every hostile government and terrorist to know the locations, travel schedules, and arming codes for all US nuclear weapons? What do you think will happen if the names of undercover agents in foreign countries are publicized? How about the impact on fighting organized crime and terrorism of eliminating the Witness Protection program? If you make use of government health care, do you really want everyone to be able to read your medical records?
Parent
Re: Let Freedom Reign (Score:5, Funny)
No, he just wants to be able to read your medical records, and any related to his political opponents. His are off limits, since that's part of his freedom, you know.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, he just wants to be able to read your medical records, and any related to his political opponents. His are off limits, since that's part of his freedom, you know.
Actually, many politicians release their medical records. I do agree with you though that mine should remain private. That's one of the reasons I'm against the government paying for my health care. Once they are the ones paying for it, they are the ones controlling it.
OK, now can you answer the rest of the questions? Here they are as the GP stated them:
Do you really want every hostile government and terrorist to know the locations, travel schedules, and arming codes for all US nuclear weapons?
What do you think will happen if the names of undercover agents in foreign countries are publicized?
How about the impact on fighting organized crime and terrorism of eliminating the Witness Protection program?
Should all that stuff be public knowledge as well? Don't get me wrong, I'd love to know all the secrets the government has. Unfortunately, the govern
Re: Let Freedom Reign (Score:4, Informative)
If you make use of government health care, do you really want everyone to be able to read your medical records?
As it stands, one of the first things Bush / Cheney did when they took control was to pass the Medical Privacy Act. Perhaps the most ironic aspect of this law is that it opens patients' private medical records for scrutiny by ALL insurance companies.
Seth
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Although it's cliche, unlike all the drummed-up BS that the Bush administration and the media like to feed you, opening up all government information really would benefit terrorists and others who wish us harm. Names and assignments of undercover agents and their contacts, methods for gathering intelligence, crypto we've broken, crypto we haven't, nuclear weapon
Republicans and Democrats will do NOTHING. (Score:5, Insightful)
I will not be voting for Obama, Hillary, or McCain. We will get the SAME THING with all of the above. Instead I'm voting for none of the above; either the Libertarian Party candidate, the Constitution Party candidate, or I'll write in US Congressman Dr Ron Paul.
If more people would refuse to vote for more of the same, then we might actually get politicians with integrity that follow and uphold the rule of law.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, because following the Constitution is SUCH a bad idea?!?!? *rolling eyes*
Where did you get the idea that the constitution is so fantastic? The founders didn't intend for it to last. And it hasn't lasted - you do understand what amendments are, right?
Stop holding the constitution up as unassailable perfection and a goal that eclipses all else. I know Americans have this weird quasi-religion when it comes to the founding fathers and the constitution, but please try to snap out of it and judge
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where did you get the idea that the constitution is so fantastic?
Several reasons. Firstly, I agree with many of the ideas in the Constitution. I won't go into details.
Secondly, I agree with the methodology -- that there should be an overarching "meta-law" that covers what sorts of things can and cannot be legislated, and that furthermore it should be significantly more difficult to change this meta-law than to change regular laws, though not impossible (the amendment procedure).
And last but certai
Result of Hearing Depends on what door is closed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Result of Hearing Depends on what door is close (Score:3, Insightful)
Attention: "security personel" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Attention: "security personel" (Score:5, Insightful)
We need to damn these fuckers with their own words. People have been deservedly killed for less; I think we can all agree that voting them out of office is a peaceable compromise.
Parent
Re:Attention: "security personel" (Score:5, Insightful)
Something worse than the 4,000 military personnel and the thousands of citizens that've died in Iraq.
Something worse than the civil liberties that've been compromised.
Something worse than the trillions of dollars that've been borrowed against future generations for a baseless war.
Something worse than the loss of funds to pay for education.
Nah, just wait for them to do something _really_ awful, like pay for sex.
Parent
The Facts (Score:5, Informative)
Surveillance of foreign targets may still be conducted under the auspices of FISA -- you'll just need to get a warrant. Up to three days after the fact. From the special secret FISA court. Which has never said no. Such hardship.
Schwab
Fear (Score:5, Insightful)
Lying Republican Scammers (Score:5, Informative)
Leave it to the Republicans. You have to, because they refused to let Democrats call a secret session last year, when Democrats wanted to review classified FISA evidence [thehill.com] to decide how to revise FISA as Republicans have demanded (but didn't while they owned the majority):
That kind of severe contradiction should disqualify anyone from participation in either "Intelligence" or "Judiciary" decisions.
Re:Lying Republican Scammers (Score:5, Informative)
Not to mention that the last time it happened in 1983 it was concerning the overthrow of the Nicaraguan government. What in the world is going on in our government?!
Parent
As a voter, citizen, and taxpayer (Score:5, Insightful)
Those fuckers are supposed to work for us, and I for one have lost patience waiting for them to remember that.
A secret session on this topic, especially this topic, is nothing but a big Fuck You to the American public.
Re:As a voter, citizen, and taxpayer (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
AT&T *doesn't* want to pay you $146,000.00 (Score:4, Interesting)
Multiply that by everyone with a phone or internet connection, and you have a statutory fine which exceeds AT&T market valuation.
Parent
WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't answer, the truth of the situation has already become painfully clear. We've got two political parties who offer the candidates that best represent their party values. Those party values include greed, graft, corruption, etc, etc. You can't vote the rascals out of office because the only choices you have to vote on are the ones the parties select for you.
And while we're hyperventilating about our elected representatives, the real dirty work is done by career bureaucrats - you didn't vote for them, you don't know them, they'll be there until they retire and they'll do what they want to regardless of which party is in power.
Here's my bet: the House and the telecom companies will kiss and hold hands and when it's over nothing will be different. Same old stuff.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9 (Score:5, Insightful)
It really doesn't get much clearer than that. "Ex post facto" means "retroactive". It does not say "maybe", or "if...". It says NO.
Bush can bitch all he wants, but he is demanding that the Democrats pass a measure that would be blatantly unconstitutional... as clearly unconstitutional as something can be! "No (whatever) shall be passed" is perfectly clear English, hardly subject to debate. And in this case, "whatever" is retroactive laws.
If the Democrats even considered doing such, they would be traitors to the Constitution, to the same extent as Bush.
Re:U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9 (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Misattribution (Score:4, Informative)
ZOMGBBQ, an editor who edits. Kind of.
Parent
Re:But it is a matter of principle (Score:5, Insightful)
They had a choice not to cooperate, Qwest acted in this manner. I can't imagine the legal departments in these companies never mentioned that this possibly an illegal action. As far as undermining the credibility of the U.S. government, it was undermined when Bush Administration authorized this program.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Tapping phones without a warrant is obviously illegal (the except is FISA where you can apply for a warrant after the fact up to 72 hours). These companies are subject to these requests all the time, they know what the requirements are for legal wiretapping, do you honestly think they had no idea that a warrantless wiretapping program would be on shaky ground?
Re:But it is a matter of principle (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:But it is a matter of principle (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:But it is a matter of principle (Score:5, Insightful)
The Bush administration have operated illegally. They have violated the law not just in spirit, but in word. They have pushed warrantless searches and wiretaps. This is not legal. They have advocated, and used, torture in the interrogation of prisoners. This is not legal. They have lied, and used said lies as an excuse to wage aggressive war. This is not legal. They have conspired to hide their actions behind a cloak of shadows, lies, and secrecy. They have refused to disclose the the extent of their actions to the duly elected agents of the People of The United States of America while under oath. This is not Legal. International Law applies whether one agrees to it or not. As much of the top Nazi brass discovered. The Bush administration have used the same tactics: Brute Force, Fear, and a blatant disregard for law, human rights, and human dignity. Any who aid or abet such actions bears blame. They could have refused. They did not.
No. No Immunity for Traitors. No Immunity for Cowards. No Immunity for those aid the destruction of the rights and liberties of free men.
If there is to be any hope for Freedom, for Democracy, hope for any kind of legacy to leave for future generations, on these things must we stand firm.
Parent
Re:At least someone... (Score:4, Funny)
Gitmo.
No one will every hear from you again.
Parent