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."
Let Freedom Reign (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
I'm so proud to be an American when... (Score:2, Insightful)
Systems Normal, All Fscked Up!
-AC
*sig removed by NSA content filter*
Result of Hearing Depends on what door is closed (Score:3, Insightful)
Not sure Bush realizes he's on the losing end here (Score:2, Insightful)
What will end up happening here (they should put me on the McLaughlin Group!) is that Congress will either sit on its thumbs or send legislation to Bush that he'll just veto again, and January 2009 will roll around. There's a greater than 50% chance that the next President will be a Democrat (to my personal chagrin, but I'm being realistic here), and the telecoms, FBI, CIA, DoJ, etc. will have things much worse when it comes to wiretapping at that point.
Re:Pre-emptive strike on anti-American posts (Score:2, Insightful)
However, I would much rather try to swing popular support to someone like Ron Paul, who espouses personal freedom and constitutional values, than begin a second civil war in this country. I mean, at the end of the day, we all live pretty good lives here in the USA -- the battle being fought is for the future. We are trying to reverse a decline, not pull the country out of the gutter.
So, I will continue to support people like Ron Paul who voice a pure and respectable ideology rather than sleezy politicians who are concerned with being caught doing something crooked rather than trying to do The Right Thing.
Re:Pre-emptive strike on anti-American posts (Score:1, Insightful)
And that only works when the government has weapons that are of equal size to those that the civilians have. Oops.
Fear (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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?
Re: Let Freedom Reign (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, well, as long as you're only going to make it available to citizens. There shouldn't be any problem at all with foreign hackers, people who want to blow up one of our ambassadors, or anyone who might want to know when President Obama will be crossing a certain intersection at a certain time of day on his way to attending some event. As long as it's only citizens with access to all government information, we should be fine. There aren't any citizens that would make inappropriate use of police communications, or air traffic systems, or anything like that.
Or is it possible that your comment being modded as 'insightful' is perhaps a big ol' troll, just like your comment?
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.
Re:But it is a matter of principle (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Republicans and Democrats will do NOTHING. (Score:2, Insightful)
or I'll write in US Congressman Dr Ron Paul.
Ron Paul the Republican? Yeah, great way to oppose the Republican/Democrat duopoly. What's next on your agenda, fucking for virginity?
Re:But it is a matter of principle (Score:-1, Insightful)
Re: Let Freedom Reign (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, now can you answer the rest of the questions? Here they are as the GP stated them:
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?
Re:Interesting proposition (Score:3, Insightful)
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: Let Freedom Reign (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe that's why YOU hide things you do. But a technology or method used to intercept communications between people planning your death or the ruin of the economy in which you live, or looking to do another London or a Madrid in San Fransisco or Seattle do NOT need to know the nature of - or the policy particulars surrounding - the means by which we'd stop them. Not if we intend to actually stop them.
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: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.
Re: Let Freedom Reign (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Grant No Immunity. Get Info to ACLU. (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 are better off today than we were a few years ago is fodder for comedians. If the terrorists decide they want to get us, they'll find a away. The only thing (thank God) that is keeping the U.S. safe today was the worldwide embrace of the U.S. after 9/11, which hurt the terrorists from an ideological point of view.
Re:Republicans and Democrats will do NOTHING. (Score:2, Insightful)
No, you'll never get a politician with integrity as long as you have silly laws, because making laws that man can not and will not obey serves to bring all laws into contempt [elizabeth cady stanton]. Once consenting adults can do as they wish in their own privacy without fear of breaking the law, then we will all get quite a bit of integrity back, and so will our politicians.
Re:As a voter, citizen, and taxpayer (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Result of Hearing Depends on what door is close (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Republicans and Democrats will do NOTHING. (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 certainly not least, every Congressman and President took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Failing in that oath is an important indicator of that person's true priorities; many times, when people complain about lawmakers ignoring the Constitution, the real complaint is less about the Constitution and more about how that person is failing to carry out the job they swore to do. If we cannot trust these people to uphold the law they swore to place above all others, why exactly are we trusting them to make any laws at all?
Re: Let Freedom Reign (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, United States citizens talking on the phone (usually) doesn't come anywhere close to posing these kinds of dangers. If there really is a threat, well, that's the whole point of having a FISA court with the power to grant warrants (even after the fact). But this mass wiretapping program is domestic spying, pure and simple. Bush and his supporters should be punished severely for running this program.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Grant No Immunity. Get Info to ACLU. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Interesting proposition (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Let Freedom Reign (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless of course the name is Valerie Plame, and the 'national interest' is defined narrowly as 'Cheney's vindictiveness'.
Re:Grant No Immunity. Get Info to ACLU. (Score:2, Insightful)
1) America didn't really receive any 'embrace' after 9/11. The rest of the world either suspected it was an inside job, or felt you had it coming.. There were very few people who truly believed the official version of events.. Which leads into..
2) You've been lied to about the 'terrorist threat'. Your assertion that there is something 'keeping America safe' relies on the idea that there are enough terrorists to make some kind of nation wide strike against a land mass the size of America, and that's simply not the case.
In support of my (harsh, and perhaps unfair) argument, i'd like you to run randomly through news broadcasts for the last 15 years, and pick out the language shift. Note the number of times the word 'terrorist' was used in the mid 90s, compared to today.
I'm not saying that there's a bunch of guys in a room somewhere controlling the media, but hysteria runs deep.. Deep enough that you seem to believe that America needs protecting from a force that doesn't actually exist...
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.
Re:Explain why. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Explain why. (Score:3, Insightful)
Blanket immunity is hardly ever a good idea. Let's say I cooperate with the police and give them incorrect information that leads to them busting into your family's house and killing a couple of family members in the process. Sorry, you can't sue me - I have immunity, even though I did you a grievous wrong.
Similarly, giving the government free reign to listen in on my phone traffic gives the government unwarranted and unprecedented power over me. I occasionally discuss firearms with a few friends of mine - while being completely legal, it's entirely possible the content of that traffic could end up getting me put on a watchlist that significantly impairs my ability to move about the country. In this case, the phone company's voluntary and unwarranted cooperation with the government will have cost me something tangible, and that's something I should be able to go to court to recover. More importantly, the mere threat of being able to sue will help keep the phone company from doing that in the first place, which is the preferred outcome.
As a previous poster indicated, the phone companies are acting as a proxy for the government when they do this - why would you think it's a good idea to remove any kind of judicial restraint and allow the executive to operate unfettered?
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.
Re:Pre-emptive strike on anti-American posts (Score:2, Insightful)
It also assumes that in the event of a rebellion so large as to actually cause people to engage in direct violence against the government all the military will actually stay on the government side and not defect (with their assault rifles with them) hell, even assumes that there are not enough people in the private sector that if they were involved in such a rebellion they could not arm an army on their own.