Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Communications Government Your Rights Online Politics

ACLU Warns of Next Pass At Telecom Immunity 201

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the try-try-again dept.
The ACLU has reportedly uncovered another pass at telecom immunity and is urging concerned citizens to speak out against what they call a "dangerous backroom deal." "But now, word comes that House leadership may be working hand-in-hand with Senator Jay Rockefeller, the Democratic Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who has spearheaded efforts to give immunity to law-breaking phone companies that provided mountains of customer data to the government without warrants. As discussions continue, it's critical that House leadership avoid buckling to pressure from the White House or Senator Rockefeller at all costs. House leadership — and every representative — need to draw a line in the sand, by rejecting any compromise that would undo the achievement we fought so hard for in February."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ACLU Warns of Next Pass At Telecom Immunity

Comments Filter:
  • by inTheLoo (1255256) * on Monday May 05, 2008 @07:25PM (#23306144) Journal

    Please follow the link and sign the ACLU petition [aclu.org] and call your local representative. Domestic spying should be exposed and eradicated. The principle is more important than party politics.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by nurb432 (527695)
      Like they really care about a list, nor is it going to stop the evential passing of a bill..

      Actually, it might just serve as the list to first go after when they get total control. You sure you want to make yourself a target?

    • Andrew McCarthy [defenddemocracy.org], the former Assistant United States Attorney who prosecuted the 1993 World Trade Center bombers (including the "Blind Sheik"), has written The Case for Telecom Immunity [defenddemocracy.org]. Worth reading.

      • by Dog-Cow (21281)
        I don't care about the legality nearly as much as I care about the morality. I believe that no moral person could believe that spying on innocent people is in any way correct or responsible.

        There is no difference between what Bush wants and what the KGB did in the USSR. It was legal for the KGB to spy on their citizens and perfectly legal for people to disappear or to be killed by KGB agents. Are you really going to argue that it's perfectly OK to head in EXACTLY the same direction because it's "legal"?

        A
  • Stupid question... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nebaz (453974) on Monday May 05, 2008 @07:27PM (#23306150)
    Does Congress even have the power to grant immunity? They think they have the power to do anything they want, but is providing blanket immunity even constitutional?
    • by Raul654 (453029) on Monday May 05, 2008 @07:29PM (#23306178) Homepage
      Congress has the (sole) power to determine what is and is not illegal. Inherent in this is the ability to grant immunity. And as I have already noted here [slashdot.org], the prohibition on ex-post facto laws does not preclude retroactive grants of immunity.
      • by nurb432 (527695) on Monday May 05, 2008 @07:45PM (#23306300) Homepage Journal
        Congress has the power to make laws that might be valid or might not..

        The supreme court has the final power to decide what is illegal and not illegal. Personally id say the power to determine is really in the hands of the court.
        • by postbigbang (761081) on Monday May 05, 2008 @07:55PM (#23306364)
          While the Supreme Court has the nexus to declare what might be ex post facto, or un-equal protection under the law, you first have to have the nexus to be an injured party. As long as the lists are secret, you will never know, and therefore cannot have nexus until the FIA brings it to light, if not redacted, 25 years from now. By then, everyone will hopefully have forgotten (is the hope, I'm sure).

          So, litigation is moot under the proposed laws. That's why it's important to fight the immunity and hit the congressional urge (and heavily lobbied) to offer the telcos immunity. My view is that it'll be weaseled in somehow, because we have no guts, and no glory in the Congress. I wish it were otherwise. Vote in November.
          • by Scrameustache (459504) on Monday May 05, 2008 @11:06PM (#23307906) Homepage Journal

            the Supreme Court has the nexus to declare what might be ex post facto, or un-equal protection under the law
            That would be the same court staffed by people who think that torture is not punishment [youtube.com]?

                    STAHL: If someone's in custody, as in Abu Ghraib, and they are brutalized, by a law enforcement person -- if you listen to the expression "cruel and unusual punishment," doesn't that apply?

                    SCALIA: No. To the contrary. You think -- Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I don't think so.

                    STAHL: Well I think if you're in custody, and you have a policeman who's taken you into custody-

                    SCALIA: And you say he's punishing you? What's he punishing you for? ... When he's hurting you in order to get information from you, you wouldn't say he's punishing you. What is he punishing you for?


            Oh, that's great, you have dishonest monsters deciding what is equal protection and what isn't! Fantastic!
            • by postbigbang (761081) on Monday May 05, 2008 @11:15PM (#23307990)
              There are a few bad apples on SCOTUS. There are a few bright moments, too, including some handed to the Bush administration. All is not lost, but it certainly isn't balanced well, we'll agree. Nonetheless, it's the law of the land. Civility demands respect, even if we don't agree. It's then incumbent upon us to vote to ensure our sentiments are hopefully followed on the next appointments. Sometimes, they are.
              • by 0111 1110 (518466)

                It's then incumbent upon us to vote to ensure our sentiments

                What the hell are you on about? Since when do presidential candidates talk about what kind of judges they want to see appointed to SCOTUS? You "the majority rule of democracy will solve every problem" people make me laugh. Maybe if we had a national referendum with veto power over SCOTUS nominations or better yet referendum veto power over individual SCOTUS decisions you would have a point. Even if the US were a pure democracy (and we sure as hell are not) and could vote directly on everything it would sti

              • There are a few bright moments, too, including some handed to the Bush administration.
                Like the whole presidency?

                Civility demands respect
                When they respect my rights, I respect their authority.
                Otherwise I wish to see their blood refresh the tree of liberty.
                • We might agree that we live free or die. As I have but one death to give, it'll be for something other than the phone company's foolishness under a boorish president's whim. There's better to fight for, methinks.

                  Yet civility requires tolerance. My 'rights' are unfortunately open to misinterpretation. But I forgive, otherwise my unyielding ways might be misspent. YMMV.
                  • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                    by rohan972 (880586)
                    So I could paraphrase what you're saying as "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."?
            • by MorePower (581188) on Monday May 05, 2008 @11:30PM (#23308082)
              SCALIA: And you say he's punishing you? What's he punishing you for? ... When he's hurting you in order to get information from you, you wouldn't say he's punishing you. What is he punishing you for?

              Damn! I mean DAMN!
              It should be blatantly obvious, he's punishing you for not giving him the information he wants!
              • SCALIA: And you say he's punishing you? What's he punishing you for? ... When he's hurting you in order to get information from you, you wouldn't say he's punishing you. What is he punishing you for?

                Damn! I mean DAMN!

                It should be blatantly obvious, he's punishing you for not giving him the information he wants!

                And since he's a judge supreme, we can't ascribe his statement of opinion on law to incompetence. We must therefore admit it was motivated by malice.

            • What Scalia should have said is that "the Constitution doesn't apply in Iraq or to Iraqi nationals." This is well-settled law, long before Scalia was on the Court. Non-US citizen not in US territory don't have Constitutional protections. But I don't expect anyone who believes that telcos acting in good faith after 9-11 to help the government track terrorist, and given assurances they wouldn't be sued, should in fact be sued, to be reasonable. The fine points of law only matter when they are on your side I g
  • For how long? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by grasshoppa (657393) <`gro.oc-onpt' `ta' `ydenneks'> on Monday May 05, 2008 @07:27PM (#23306156) Homepage
    Seriously, how long are we going to be able to keep up the fight? It's obvious the current administration and the telcos will just keep making one run after another until one gets through; and don't bother suggesting that we will actually hold them accountable at some point. That's laughable.

    So the question becomes, how long until we burn out?
    • Re:For how long? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by east coast (590680) on Monday May 05, 2008 @07:35PM (#23306216)
      The current administration? Given the current balance of power this isn't as much a move by the current administration but by both parties working in unison. Sure, some will use it as a token "it's not me" vote but in the long run this isn't just Bush & Co or even the Republicans...

      Wake up from your dreaded party politics dream and you'll see the real nightmare.
      • There are indeed valid, substantial questions regarding Jay Rockefeller's campaign contributors and the FISA Bill's telecom immunity clause. My questions about him go back farther to when he was minority committee leader, and was being pussy-whipped by Sen. Roberts (Can's-Ass) about Robert's promise to have the Intelligence Committee investigate the administration's use of pre-Iraq War intelligence, and even get around to issuing subpoenas, so Feith and Wolfowitz would get their asses hauled down to assert their 5th Amendment rights under oath while being televised nationwide. There are several Democratic Senators whose defense of civil liberties is very questionable.

        However, your intimated assertion of a partisan parity is absurd, and a wild flight of fantasy from reality.

        Let's investigate reality without the rosy-tint of you blurry lens:

        Senate Roll Call Vote #20 on February 12, 2008, The FISA Amendments Act [senate.gov]

        • Vote Total: 68 Yeas - 29 Nays - 3 NoVotes
        • Yeas by Party: 48 R - 20 D - 1 I (Lieberman)
        • Nays by Party: 0 R - 29 D - 1 I (Sanders)
        • NoVotes by Party: 1 R - 2 D - 0 I

        Clearly, The Democrats are The Lamer of Two Evils.

    • by AuMatar (183847)
      Until the next administration. If its a democrat, you have a chance.

      If its McCain, I recommend investing in lube. We'll need a lot of it.
      • Re:For how long? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by whoever57 (658626) on Monday May 05, 2008 @07:48PM (#23306316) Journal

        Until the next administration.
        Last time I looked, Congress passed laws, not the President. Also, last time I looked, the House was controlled by the Democratic party which was also the majority part in the Senate. So how is a new administration going to make any difference?
        • Re:For how long? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Delwin (599872) * on Monday May 05, 2008 @07:52PM (#23306340)
          Veto.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by postbigbang (761081)
          The problem has been that the President must sign them, and if vetoed, then a 2/3rds majority must overrule his veto. That doesn't happen much.

          A Democratic president that has a Demo congress has a better chance of breaking logjams, for constitutional and party-whip control reasons.
        • Re:For how long? (Score:5, Informative)

          by Daniel Dvorkin (106857) * on Monday May 05, 2008 @07:59PM (#23306398) Homepage Journal
          Most of the outrages perpetrated by the current Democratic Congress have been the work of just enough of its "majority" members, of which Rockefeller is a prime example, knuckling under to the White House and going along with pretty much all the Republicans to pass every evil bill the Bush administration demands. Most Democratic representatives and senators are voting against these bills, but given how fine the balance of power is, all it takes is a few Democrats to go along with the Republican party line. Presumably, under an Obama or Clinton administration, the Rockefellers and Feinsteins and Liebermans will continue to be gutless for the White House, only this time they'll be gutless stooges for the (relatively speaking) good guys.
          • by DavidTC (10147)

            No, the 'next administration' isn't really that important. What is important is the next Congress.

            And last election, anyone with a D next to their name got in. This election, those Ds that aren't actually Ds have had primary challenges they're going to lose, and get replaced with real D.

            The Republicans, right now, are pretending that it takes 60 votes to get anything they don't like through the Senate. Meanwhile, somehow, three or four Democrats caving to the Republicans give them 52 votes, which is someh

            • by Bartab (233395)
              And last election, anyone with a D next to their name got in. This election, those Ds that aren't actually Ds have had primary challenges they're going to lose, and get replaced with real D.

              What a simpleminded, biased, and totally incorrect worldview.

              Those "not a real D's", what some are calling Blue Dog Democrats won their office because they were, in your words, "not real D's" Somehow, you'll have to come to grips with the fact that in many places in the country, Democrats are a distant second choice.

              And
            • Attitudes like yours are a significant cause for the flight of Americans from the Democratic party. How many times are you going to play your asinine circular firing squad game before you realise nobody wins?

              Please offer valid citations for your defamatory statements about Reid, or admit that you are not in fact motivated by a will to defend liberty, but instead by the same lame-brained liberealities that got the party sodomised by the new right in the first place.

              Christ Almighty! - Evil to the right of

          • Voting against our Commander in Chief? Traitors!
          • The Democrats aren't "good guys" either. For every thing about them that is better than the Republicans, there's something else that's worse. And both of them are weighed down by party politics that prevent true visionary thinking from actually improving the government.
          • by jamstar7 (694492)
            The problem, of course, is, the lesser of two evils is STILL evil. That's just something you just can't paint over.
        • If McCain is President, the legislation or lack thereof will be irrelevant. He'll do what he damn well pleases, and use the "National Security depends on executive action being hidden from the prying eyes of the public" excuse to block discovery and effectively prevent litigation. Just like W.
        • by vague_ascetic (755456) <va@@@impietease...com> on Monday May 05, 2008 @09:53PM (#23307352) Homepage Journal

          49 D - 49 R - 2 I

          Reid is the majority leader by virtue of Lieberman's two-timing hide. Care to guess which side of the isle he votes on FISA and telecom immunity?

          You also need to consider that cloture votes (an agreement to end debate and go to a vote on a bill or specific debated issue in a bill, requires a super-majority of 60%. Back when the Democrats used this to block a handful of Bush's most activist of right-wing judge appointees, they were criticised as being undemocratic. Now that Republicans have have used the tactic to effectively shut down any attempts by Democrats to right wrongs from the last 7 years, the Democrats are called inept or in collusion.

          A fine example of this tactic is : Roll Call Vote #340 [senate.gov] on September 19, 2007. It was a cloture to vote on Senator Specter's Amendment #2022 [loc.gov] to The Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 - the purpose of which was to restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United States. The voted count was 56-Yea -- 43 Nay -- 12 NoVote. The Party affiliation of the vote was:
          Yea - 49 D - 6R - 1 I (Sanders)
          Nay - 42 R - 0D - 1 I (Lieberman)

          Habeas corpus is a Natural Right, which the Constitution states can only be suspended in times of domestic invasion or public insurrection. To assert that a sneak attack by 20 detemine F**ks, which to this Nation's great misfortune, coincided with an administration so arrogant, ignorant and derelict, it failed at its primary duty to defend America constitutes an "invasion", is to chase after a well dressed bunny down into a dark hole in the ground. This should not be a partisan issue, and REAL conservatives understand this clearly. Read Kenneth Starr's written opinion to The Senate [liberatedtext.org].

          My question to you is: did you actually look last time or did you just accept what you were told?

          • by whoever57 (658626)

            My question to you is: did you actually look last time or did you just accept what you were told?

            Actually, I did look ... what I found was a page on the senate.gov website, which I expect to be authoritative on this subject:
            http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm [senate.gov]

            I did notice the 49 seats each, but also noted that there is also one Independent Democrat. A certain Joe Lieberman. Clearly, just like many Democrats and Republicans, he does not always vote with "his" party.

            • It is absurd that a person who refused to accept the democratic vote of his own party in the primaries, and then reentered the election as an independent who accepted major contribution from the other main party, and pulled all party support out from under their own candidate, would be referred to as being democratic.

              Liegberman subverted the democratic process of his own chosen party, The Democrats. He aligned with the Dem. side, because the Senate rules force third party and independent members to pick o

      • by Opportunist (166417) on Monday May 05, 2008 @07:55PM (#23306366)
        As an European, I might not see the subtle differences between Democrats and Republicans, but to my eyes, they look so similar I can't really see the choice.
        • There isn't but most Americans are too lunkheaded to see beyond the politics of their parents and their parents parents, so on and so forth.

          I love how smug Democrats and Republicans are when we've seen the damage that both parties do.
          • by spikedvodka (188722) on Monday May 05, 2008 @10:25PM (#23307600)
            You mean like the old joke:

            A guy is sitting in the front row of a "town meeting" in an overwhelming republican town, when the R presidential candidate comes to speak.

            the candidate asks "So who here is a republican?" everybody else raises their hands, so he asks the gentleman in the front "So why aren't you a republican?"
            "Well, my father was a democrat, his father was a democrat, as so was his father before him, so I'm a democrat."
            "Well, what if your father, and his father has been idiots?"
            "Then I guess I'd be a republican"
        • by NotBornYesterday (1093817) on Monday May 05, 2008 @09:13PM (#23307008) Journal
          Republicans used to be the party in favor of lower taxes & smaller government & farmers. Foreign policy tended to be hawkish. They'd let you have guns and God, but not porn or gay sex. Right wing.

          Democrats used to be the party in favor of civil rights & bigger social programs & friendly with labor. Foreign policy tended to be dovish. You couldn't have guns or put up a Christmas tree on public land, but you could have porn and/or gay sex. Left wing.

          Now they both tax the crap out of us, spend us into a world of deficit, screw the working/middle class and infringe on our rights while cutting social programs. Or maybe it has always been that way, and I'm only starting to notice. Hmm ...

          Seriously though, although the Republicans are generally right of center and Dems are generally left of center, since there are only 2 parties each party covers a lot of ideological ground and there is some overlap in the middle. With both parties being mindlessly poll-driven, I feel like most of them are simply parroting the feel-good position of the day as it comes to them from their handlers, making both sides sound remarkably similar overall. Mostly they just argue over who gets the blame or the credit, depending which way the poll numbers are going.
          • by famebait (450028)
            Seriously though, although the Republicans are generally right of center and Dems are generally left of center,

            You don't say?
            'Center' is _defined_ as the middle ground between the biggest players.

            There is no fixed 'neutral' center. Who the big players are and what their stances mean varies with time and from country to country, and so does the perception of what the 'center' means. The 'center' here in Norway is far out to the left of the US Dems. Even our extreme right wing struggles to be slightly to the
          • by Nimey (114278)
            You left out one critical bit: Dems are generally left-of-center for the United States and the GOP right-of-center for the United States.

            I'm told that Europeans think of Dems as being rather conservative. They're generally horrified by the Republicans.
            • That pretty much sums it up nicely. From a European point of view, the US have a liberal right wing party and a conservative right wing party.
          • What if I'm for lower taxes & smaller government & farmers? What if I want guns, even semi and fully automatic ones? What if I'm in favor of civil rights & social programs & friendly towards labor? What if I could give a fuck about xmas trees anywhere? What if I like porn and could give a fuck if someone has gay sex? What then?

        • at least presently. Admittedly it is nuanced and difficult to perceive. I would have preferred a more secluded place for this pointer, but if you poke around the relevant part of the namespace presently given as mine in this note's header (it will be obvious is you visit), you'd probably begin to perceive them.

        • by Boronx (228853)
          Here's the difference: Only about half the Democrats (speaking of congress here) voted for this war based on lies that has murdered tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Almost every single Republican voted for it.

          A sizable chunk of Democrats want to hold the Bush administration accountable for this crime, Almost no Republican does.

          Almost all Democrats are against Telco (and by extension, Bush) immunity, but enough are willing to vote with just about every single Republican tha
          • You are closer to the mark, but the figures should be clearly stated. Republicans have historically been slippery eels when it comes to properly assessing causality from their actions. Accepting Personal Responsibility is not actually a tenet of contemporary conservatives. It is instead a strategy that provides them with multiple opportunities to insult poor folk.

            In The Senate, It was Roll Call 237 on October 11, 2002 [senate.gov]. The toal vote count was:
            Yeas - 77 --- Nays - 23

            The party affiliation breakdown was

          • So what you say is that the Dems don't readily but haphazedly vote for Republican issues while the Reps support it full force.

            That's not a different political view. It is considered a given in Europe that every delegate of a party supports the issues put forwards by the party leader, while the opposing party (or parties) vote against it on principle. If anything, a European observer would say that the Reps have their delegates under control while the Dems don't.
        • by ZorbaTHut (126196)
          Oh yes, the difference is quite simple.

          Democrats want to increase government spending and lower taxes, in that order. Republicans, on the other hand, want to lower taxes and increase government spending, in that order.

          If that's not enough, there's other issues they differ on. Republicans are in favor of important useful rights like firearm ownership, and strongly against dangerous inhuman practices like abortion. Democrats, however, are in favor of important useful rights like abortion, and strongly against
          • You're right that Democrats tax and spend, but Republicans spend without end, and foist the costs off onto the backs of future citizens. When is the worst of two paths to traverse?

            You are no longer able to return to you former fantasy world within your distorted model of a bipolar polity. The GOP Gone Wild in D.C., when they possessed a 3 - 0 branch majority is well-documented as fact, that proves Republicans are nothing but scum-sucking lying thieves of liberty.

            The Democrats are The Lamer of Two Evils.

            • by ZorbaTHut (126196)
              Personally, I don't actually agree. They are equally awful in different ways - yes, the Republicans are driving this country into the ground economically, but the Democrats are trying to eliminate any possible way of fixing it in the future.

              I think they both rather need to be eradicated.
        • by bentcd (690786)

          As an European, I might not see the subtle differences between Democrats and Republicans, but to my eyes, they look so similar I can't really see the choice.
          Republicans tend to increase the national debt while democrats tend to reduce it.

          I think that's it really.

          But then, I'm also European so what do I know :-)
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Toonol (1057698)
        Until the next administration. If its a democrat, you have a chance.

        That much foolish naiveté in an adult is unpardonable. If you're a child, then it's forgivable, as you may yet learn about the nature of politics, power, and corruption as you grow.
    • Re:For how long? (Score:5, Informative)

      by The Master Control P (655590) <<ejkeever> <at> <nerdshack.com>> on Monday May 05, 2008 @07:48PM (#23306312)
      The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
      • The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
        And the US of A is doing its best to head into a recession.

        Quite frankly I don't see how anyone over there is able to Afford Such A High Price.
      • by wrook (134116)

        The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

        There's more to it than that. First you have to be vigilant. Then you have to do something about it.
    • by 24-bit Voxel (672674) on Monday May 05, 2008 @07:49PM (#23306328) Journal
      It really does seem to be both parties working together.

      In the past for social change to become in the public awareness it has taken a bad economy or an intolerable immediate social situation. Given the track record of the Republicans over the past 30 years the best path to force social change would be to keep electing them so that they destroy the economy and the standing of the US in the rest of the world to such a level that only public outcry and massive social change can bring us back. Naturally, no one wants this so we are stuck between a rock (iraq) and a hard place.

      /sarcasm on


      So do us all a favor and vote for the worst candidate from here on out. It's the only way. It will bring out social change faster than the small bandaid method we are currently employing. This is the best way to 'burn out'.

      /sarcasm off


      Note: this message has been edited for the sarcasm impaired.

  • by Aaron England (681534) on Monday May 05, 2008 @07:47PM (#23306310)
    This is not a troll, but can anyone tell me what does it matter? Have the telecos been successfully sued in court for their indiscretions? Are we pursuing them in court? If the answer is no to both counts, then what does it matter if we grant them immunity.
    • by postbigbang (761081) on Monday May 05, 2008 @08:00PM (#23306408)
      Money fuels litigation. No class to litigate means no legal expenses paid. Quid pro quo.

      If there is immunity, no one can start a suit. But we still have many dragging answers from the administration about the nature of what happened, and to the extent it happened, and so the class of people injured (who then have nexus to sue) really isn't known yet. When it is, provided you really can sue, someone will. And I'll be happy to become a party to the plaintiffs that do it. Such behavior cannot be rewarded, and the damage to privacy and freedom in the name of security is done.
  • by copponex (13876) on Monday May 05, 2008 @07:49PM (#23306322) Homepage
    If the telecoms don't have anything to hide, why would they be afraid of a few questions?

    Uh-oh, Big Brother. It looks like that logic has a nasty way of working both ways. The only way to prevent this from happening in the future is to keep immunity out, sue every single telecom into bankruptcy, and throw every member of the Administration who was involved into prison.

    Pff... hahahahah. Alright, it was worth a good laugh. Now please, go back to watching your televisions. The Factor is coming right up! Top news story? Reverend Jeremiah Wright is not an "honest man," and makes money selling lies...
    • by Miseph (979059)
      "Reverend Jeremiah Wright is not an "honest man," and makes money selling lies..."

      Yeah, how dare he say that people hate us in the Middle East because we took a dangerous and selfish angle in our diplomatic relations to the region's influential states! We're perfect and there can be no repercussions for our actions! He's just racist against real Americans...
  • ...'make a pass at' means something like 'reveal your sexual desire for'. What does it mean in American English? Given the context here of governments and telecom immunity I can only assume it means something like "fuc* in the ass".
    • by wellingj (1030460)
      That's a pretty good description of what they are trying to do Citizen's Rights.
    • by Faylone (880739)
      Either that, or in reference to a plane or such making a bombing pass
    • In context, your interpretation is basically correct. Generally, to take another pass is to come at it again. As in pass-by again.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 05, 2008 @08:04PM (#23306436)
    What's at stake here is that an entire sector of corporation (allegedly) broke the law in secret, and once exposed, is now trying to make what they did suddenly legal.

    What's at stake here is the public's right to discover who in our government (allegedly) requested that the law (allegedly) be broken.

    What's at stake here is nothing less than the rule of law itself and whether the law is controlled by the People or by the corporations.

    Think about the consequences if fucking telecommunications companies for God's sake get away with (allegedly) violating our rights to privacy guaranteed by the FISA laws...

    Think about the consequences if the (alleged) pressure to break the law from our own government never is fully exposed...

    Think of the consequences if justice is not served to those who deserve it...

    If they get away with this, the grand experiment that is America has failed.

    Allegedly.
    • Think about the consequences if fucking telecommunications companies for God's sake get away with (allegedly) violating our rights to privacy guaranteed by the FISA laws...
      One of the consequences is AT&T's evasion of the fiscal penalties for their CHOICE to unlawfully spy on people.

      Which at this point is, I believe, about $150,000.00 for each person whose rights have been infringed.

      I could use that money. I could fill up my car, what? 50 times!

  • for posting this. Anyone who wishes to contact their Senator can do so here [senate.gov].
    • by danzona (779560)
      I agree, thank you scuttlemonkey.

      TFS says that it is the House that should be contacted (rather than the Senate) and they can be found here [house.gov]
  • Queue up the comments that distill to "I would rather give up all my rights than support the ACLU because they don't actively support the 2nd Amendment."
  • I have no problem with granting immunity to the Telecom operators. But only if the actual criminals (Bush and his administration) are immediately executed for treason.

This is a good time to punt work.

Working...