House of Representatives To Discuss Wiretapping In Closed Session 264
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."
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].
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
Re:Misattribution (Score:4, Informative)
ZOMGBBQ, an editor who edits. Kind of.
Re:Republicans and Democrats will do NOTHING. (Score:-1, Informative)
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:But it is a matter of principle (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: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.
Re:The Facts (Score:0, Informative)
Dude, they have said no as many as five times [wikipedia.org]! Four of those had to be resubmitted before they were partially granted. Aside from that nearly 200 applications had to be modified before they were accepted. How can the government be expected to get anything done with these kinds of hardships?
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
Re:U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9 (Score:5, Informative)
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?!
Re:But it is a matter of principle (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Interesting proposition (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 statement' because they are in fact one and the same. The above is a textbook example of an 'ironic expression'.
The Merriam Website defines sarcasm as:
1: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2 a: a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b: the use or language of sarcasm
Both defs define sarcasm in terms of irony. This isn't an accident.
Re:But it is a matter of principle (Score:2, Informative)
Now to say that Bush is comparable to Nazi's is far fetched unless you can show a true intent for National Socialism (Hitler's variety of it at least) and a maximally aggressive effort against those who don't fit the Nationalist bill. He would probably need plans to invade Canada, and many professions would legally require membership in the GOP.
Re: Let Freedom Reign (Score:3, Informative)
How much of this argument is total hooey is left as an exercise for the reader - the fact remains that wiretapping is widespread in the UK, every well organised group knows this and takes appropriate countermeasures, and the only people likely to be incriminated by wiretap evidence are rank amateurs whose chances of a successful attack are minimal.
Re:Republicans and Democrats will do NOTHING. (Score:3, Informative)
As Franklin said to a passer-by, "A Republic, if you can keep it."
Re:U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9 (Score:3, Informative)
Doing it "retroactively", on the other hand, is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT matter! To pass "retroactive" immunity, a law is passed that says something like, "We declare this activity to be NOT ILLEGAL, and we make this ruling effective as of two years ago." This has an effect similar to a pardon, but it is not the same thing.
Do you understand the distinction? It is subtle but it is a real and very important difference. It is permissible to pardon for a crime that has been committed, but it is NOT permissible to pass a retroactive law. Contrary to what you state, retroactive laws ARE unconstitutional, no matter what they are doing... criminalizing or de-criminalizing.