Bimo_Dude writes "Today (June 20), Steny Hoyer is bringing to the House floor the latest FISA bill (PDF), which includes retroactive immunity for the telcos. The bill also is very weak on judicial review, allowing the telcos to use a letter from the president as a 'get out of liability free' card. Here are comments from the EFF. Glenn Greenwald, writing in Salon, describes the effect of the immunity clause this way: 'So all the Attorney General has to do is recite those magic words — the President requested this eavesdropping and did it in order to save us from the Terrorists — and the minute he utters those words, the courts are required to dismiss the lawsuits against the telecoms, no matter how illegal their behavior was.'"
Which is satisfactory evidence that you do not know the definition of the word in United States law. Start with the Constitution [archives.gov]--article III, section 3.
This is a monumentally stupid move, and (IMO, IANAL) illegal, but it is not "treason."
What, you--a "technolibertarian," whatever that is--wants the government to do something for you? That's called hypocrisy where I come from, but maybe "technolibertarians" use language differently from normal people.
Treason is defined as it is in the Constitution precisely to prevent the "conviction by whim" that you seem to propose.
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday June 20 2008, @11:37AM (#23874757)
That's fine, but are you going to do something about it or just bitch online? You yanks always make a big deal about your right to keep and bear arms. Well, that right isn't worth much if once in a while you don't start actually putting bullets through the brains of those treasonous authoritarian fucks.
I don't see a single mention of the rights of the citizens of the USA in there, just a lot of talk about business and government becoming best buddies and scratching each others' backs.
companies cannot trust the word from our government
Um, companies shouldn't blindly obey any order from the government without running by legal. If your a stock holder in one of these telecoms wouldn't you think they had some obligation to verify that what they were doing was indeed legal (it wasn't) and that they did not face exposure due to it (they should be exposed, and face serious consequences)?
Being that the cort took some time to determine that the governments actions were indeed illegal shows that it was in the gray area of right and wrong
No, it was not a gray area - it was illegal, it was illegal when they did it, and it's still illegal. They knew it was illegal and they did it anyway - no legal dept. worth its salt could have possibly signed off on this sort of an action without knowing that it was never going to see the light of day. They were exposed from the inside - and they deserve to be punished for breaking the law, just because they are a corporation doesn't mean they get to skirt responsibility for their actions.
I beg to differ. The president most assuredly is guilty of high crimes, and the Congressmen that pass a bill to grant immunity to the president for violating his oath of office have themselves violated the Constitution and therefore their oaths of office by way of primary action and complicity. They will have raised the president above the law, assumed themselves above the law by granting such, and by doing so will have betrayed the American government and the people from which it derives its powers. That, sir, is treason.
It took over 200 years, but the Tories may be about to finally win the war...
What right does the government have to say that an individual or company who violated your rights cannot be held accountable. Has the government gone so completely backwards that now they're endorsing rather than preventing rights violations?
It's like a rapist asking God for forgiveness. Only the victim has the right to forgive.
You all talk here and you leave out streets and the congressmen. I bet a month's salary (to be donated to ACLU) that the bill WILL pass. Because none of you guys protested like your dads and moms did during Vietnam War. Sitting on your collective asses will not achieve anything. God save you guys from your president.
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday June 20 2008, @11:31AM (#23874677)
I've been writing and calling my Congressman, Elliot Engel, on this issue for months. Yesterday I received an email from his staff stating he was happy to tell me there was no telecom immunity as of the March FISA vote. Upset that this completely neglected to mention how he planned to vote on this bill today, I called his office. The staffer said she'd never heard of FISA or telecom immunity. I called a different office, and they said they didn't know where he stood on the issue but they'd be happy to call me back once he voted. Talk about a joke. This has really been eye-opening to me.
This is a vote in the House of Representatives. Obama and McCain are members of the Senate, which voted on this issue months ago. For the short-memoried among us, Obama opposes telecom immunity, and McCain supports it.
"Obama and McCain are members of the Senate, which voted on this issue months ago."
On a completely different bill, S. 2248, which passed the Senate but was defeated in the House. This is H.R. 6304, being hailed and endorsed by House and Senate leaders in both parties as a great compromise.
"For the short-memoried among us, Obama opposes telecom immunity, and McCain supports it."
If the House can change its mind so drastically in four months, why not these men?
On both sides of the isle. Both parties have lost their way and are now off in despotic cuckoo-land. Whatever we have become, if they have their way we will certainly be no Republic any longer. The only option is to boot every damn representative who votes for this bill regardless of party. They clearly do not represent a constitution of a nation ruled by laws and not men.
I say we start with Representatives Pelosi, Hoyer, and Bond.
Since both presidential candidates are in congress, they way that they vote on this bill should be the tipping point for anyone on the fence between the two. Unless of course they both vote for this, then they should both be tarred and feathered.
Heck, we should tar and feather them anyway...every presidential candidate should learn what it feels like before they reach that office.
As the new de facto leader of the Democratic Party, and as a Senator, Barack Obama could stop this with a word. What will he say ? Will he stand up for liberty ? Or betray it before he even gets elected ?
You gave up your weapons to feel safe because you don't want the responsibility.
You gave up your rights to feel safe because you don't want the responsibility.
You feel safe because you abdicated your responsibility to ensure the govt did not run over the people.
Look ! Its American Idol. You can quit reading now.
You are safe.
The full breakdown, showing which way each representative voted, will be available at Roll No. 437 [house.gov] in roughly an hour, when the Clerk of the House posts it.
This type of encroachment on civil liberties was commonplace during the Red Scare and through the Vietnam era. There was backlash, some high profile scandals, and we got the FISA. 9/11 was the impetus for changing the balance of power back to the state. Since the passage of the PATRIOT Act, the government has been steadily grabbing at more (unconstitutional) powers to surveille its citizens. Hopefully there will be public backlash, but the power structure of the country is quite a bit different from previous eras. I would argue the US is more corporatist than in any previous era, and now we're fighting on two fronts. Hence the telco immunity provisions. Corporations and the state are getting a bit too cozy for my taste, and capitalism be damned, I don't want to end up in a facsist state.
Now they can be subpoenaed as a material witness against the Executive, and they'll enjoy far less protections against their having to produce evidence. No fifth amendment protections for one, since it couldn't incriminate them.
Not that this will actually happen, but it's a nice fantasy.
I think we need a constitutional amendment. It should read: "Any bill that comes before the Congress to be passed into law must be able to be summarized accurately and without loss of detail into 50 words or less. Once this is accomplished, the original multi-thousand page document shall be thrown out, and the 50-word summary presented for passage into law."
And perhaps another one: "Anyone who attempts to add text to a bill that is completely at odds with or irrelevant to the bill's title shall be considered guilty of treason and put to death immediately in as brutal a way as possible."
Granted, so far it's "only" about illegal wiretaps against U.S. citizens. But essentially this says "If the PotUS says 'do task A for me', then the company that does task A cannot and will not be held liable, even if it breaks the law."
So far that task has been (and might still be) "spy on U.S. citizens"
What's to stop the next task from being "rough up U.S. citizens who mouth off against the government"? Or "kill U.S. citizens who are a pain in the ass"?
Sure, that's a big slippery slope, but then again, I'm sure if you went back to say... September 2000 and asked people on the street, they'd probably say that the U.S. government would NEVER allow such a thing. Of course, they'd probably say the same thing about torture (or whatever phrase you'd like to use instead), suspension of habeas corpus and a lot of other things that have happend in less than a decade. Even "small" stuff like purposely revealing the name and occupation of an active CIA agent working abroad.
He seems to view giving retroactive immunity to corporations for horrendous violations of US law and the constitution as something "disagreeable but potentially acceptable".
I think i'm going to vote for Mccain. I'm left by canadian standards, but my position means jack if the candidate lies to you. Mccain is honest.
I know he doesn't give a flying crap about me and is in bed with corporations. I know what to expect from him.
"Ah, this is obviously some strange use of the word "safe" that I wasn't previously aware of." --Arthur Dent
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." --Thomas Paine
"In the 1980s capitalism triumphed over communism. In the 1990s it triumphed over democracy." --David Korten
You feel a whole lot more like you do now than you did when you used to.
[A] civil action may not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court against any person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community, and shall be properly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the district court of the United States in which such action is pending that . . .
(4) the assistance alleged to have been provided . . . was --
(A) in connection with intelligence activity involving communications that was
(i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007 and (ii) designed to prevent or detect a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation of a terrorist attack, against the United States" and
(B) the subject of a written request or directive . . . indicating that the activity was
(i) authorized by the President; and (ii) determined to be lawful.
That's one of the main points of the bill. The weird thing is that this morning, there was an editorial in the Washington Post [washingtonpost.com] indicating that the newspaper supports the bill.
It was my hope that the article would be posted in time for people to contact their representatives, but also, the scumbags passed the bill [washingtonpost.com] at just about the same time that this article made the front page of/.. The roll call is not available on Thomas yet though.
That's what I've been trying to figure out. What the telcos were doing was illegal when they did it. Granting immunity, on the hopes that they'll know it's illegal and behave better next time is asinine.
They were well aware that they weren't being provided appropriate paperwork the last time otherwise, they'd be itching to have their day in court. Letting them off the hook for what was obviously illegal is hardly teaching them a lesson for the future.
Really, what ought to happen is the people at the top making the decision to comply with the illegal orders should go to prison.
In the military, we are given a class during basic training on how to respond to superiors who give illegal orders.
Examples are given of what constitutes and illegal order, and what the proper phrasing of the response should be. Granted, you will probably end up at some kind of punitive action review, if not full court-martial for disobeying or refusing to obey a superior officer, yet, you have your out. However, if enough evidence or witnesses are available to show that the order that was given was in fact illegal, then the superior who gave said order is brought up on charges. At least that's the way it's supposed to work.
Now, if all the telcos that did this activity, were to show that they were authorized or requested by the president to do this illegal activity then wouldn't that potentially be fuel for the fire to have criminal charges brought against the President? ie - add to the charges of impeachment?
Regardless of his reasoning, committing an illegal act is still committing an illegal act, and 9/11 did not change the constitution.
(B) the subject of a written request or directive [from the Executive Branch] indicating that the activity was (ii) determined to be lawful.
Now, there's nothing wrong with the Attorney General making a legal opinion - that's pretty much his job:
The original duties of this officer were "to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States, or when requested by the heads of any of the departments."
What happens when you instruct the courts to drop any case against any action that has been "determinaed to be legal"? Folks, you have the wonderful choices of: a) the Legislative branch instructing the Judicial branch to obey the Executive branch b) an Executive branch that essentially makes its own law on what's legal and not c) creating government-sponsored thugs outside the law, free from the restrictions of the government d) all of the above
We still might get the lawsuits. If you read that, the section 4(B)(ii) requires it to be "determined to be lawful", only the Courts can determine that the acts are lawful, not the President. As such, if the Court decides that the act was not lawful, the Telecom is still not immune to the activity.
Mussolini never said nor wrote that, nor did Giovani Gentile, so I'm not sure where this quote comes from.
Likewise, in Italian Fascism, "corporation" means a vertical trade union, like a syndicate, and is akin to guild socialism. The people at the top of the corporation are the "masters" and the people at the bottom are the "apprentices" with varying levels of competancy in between.
Votes for the Chamber of Deputies are then done by occupation -- so the transportation syndicate is comprised of airline and rail workers, for instance. They then vote for members to represent them in the parliament.
Only people who are experts in their field craft laws and regulations, which are then given to approval. The "dictator" then has ultimate responsibility to carry it out.
Frankly, it sounds a hell of a lot better than our current popularity contest that leads to lawyers from dairy country trying to pass laws regarded IT policy, for instance.
Not that I'm a fascist, I just read everything about them I could get out of my university library 'cause i didn't have tv.
Corrupt government officials passing legislation favoring corrupt companies is the antithesis of capitalism.
And that is the inevitable result of free market capitalism, or fascist states where the government is "the shadow of business cast over society."
Well regulated markets work the best. Without regulation, you cannot assign cost to environmental damage, or prevent greed from wrecking society. Hierarchies will always get top heavy with power and corruption. If that hierarchy is in a corporation, there's nothing the public can do about it. If they are in a functioning democracy, at least the public can vote corruption out during the next election cycle.
So, a healthy but limited government keeping corporate power in check will yield many of the benefits of capitalism. I think in order to do this we need to introduce the separation of business and state.
Public officials should not be allowed to seek employment after their service with any firm that does business with the government. If you don't like it, don't run for office. You're running because you want to participate as a proud citizen of our democracy, not so you can enjoy power and kickbacks. Right?
"And that is the inevitable result of free market capitalism, or fascist states where the government is "the shadow of business cast over society.""
That is not capitalism, but corporatism [wikipedia.org].
"Without regulation, you cannot assign cost to environmental damage or prevent greed from wrecking society."
What is this based on? Do you have any supporting evidence that "greed wrecks society", or should we just accept what you say?
"Hierarchies will always get top heavy with power and corruption."
Corruption only becomes a concern to the public when it is backed by force, something which only the government can apply.
"If they are in a functioning democracy, at least the public can vote corruption out during the next election cycle."
And that official will be replaced by another corrupt official. As long as the government is able to manipulate the economy, individuals and businesses will flock to them to get manipulation in their favor (otherwise they risk seeing unfavorable legislation forced against them).
"So, a healthy but limited government keeping corporate power in check will yield many of the benefits of capitalism."
The ends do not justify the means, ever. A few temporary positives are not worth giving up all your rights.
"I think in order to do this we need to introduce the separation of business and state."
I can agree with that, although you seem to think the fault lies with the businesses, whereas for me, because the state is the entity actually applying the force on the public, I see the state as to blame.
Corruption only becomes a concern to the public when it is backed by force, something which only the government can apply.
[snip] And that official will be replaced by another corrupt official. As long as the government is able to manipulate the economy, individuals and businesses will flock to them to get manipulation in their favor (otherwise they risk seeing unfavorable legislation forced against them).
The problem is that even if the state cannot manipulate the market, there will still be business interests attempting to manipulate the government to effectively enforce said business's monopoly. You do correctly identify the end problem though being the state. The state must not be corruptible, or corporations will work tirelessly to corrupt it. It is as simple as that.
And please do note that the state does not have a monopoly on force. Physical force, sure, but sufficiently large corporations have a surprising amount of market force, which can sometimes be just as effective as physical force. (Consider a cabal of the worlds largest 30 or so corporations, and how they would be able to manipulate completely unregulated markets if no general regulation (such as anti-trust laws) were also present.).
Properly working regulation may keep corporations in check, but it still requires a state that the businesses really cannot corrupt. So the state is to blame for being corruptible, but the corporations are to blame for exploiting that fact. End result though is that the state needs to change.
You forgot the most important quote that should be on your chain:
"Any government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you've got." - attributed to Thomas Jefferson
To translate for those hard of reason: "Any government big enough to redistribute the fruits of other people's labor to YOU by force, is big enough to take everything it wants from you, also by force. It is also big enough to run your life, and kill you or enslave you on a whim or a trumped up charge. It can also watch you and make a panopticon of your daily life. And you will like it, and clamor for it to change only enough that you won't notice the ubiquity of the abuses. Yes indeed, you will... like it." - Me
"Any government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you've got." - attributed to Thomas Jefferson
Doesn't sound anything like him. Mark Twain perhaps.
Thing is, most of the "smaller government" people want government out of the places they want their private craven, corrupt, superstituous, hateful ideologies to rule instead. They consider it "judicial activism" when the courts say that government should stay out of proscriptive definitions of marriage, for example.
Treason (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as I'm concerned, every single member of Congress who votes in favor of this bill is guilty of treason.
Re:Treason (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is satisfactory evidence that you do not know the definition of the word in United States law. Start with the Constitution [archives.gov]--article III, section 3.
This is a monumentally stupid move, and (IMO, IANAL) illegal, but it is not "treason."
Parent
Re:Treason (Score:4, Informative)
What, you--a "technolibertarian," whatever that is--wants the government to do something for you? That's called hypocrisy where I come from, but maybe "technolibertarians" use language differently from normal people.
Treason is defined as it is in the Constitution precisely to prevent the "conviction by whim" that you seem to propose.
Parent
Re:Treason (Score:5, Insightful)
That's fine, but are you going to do something about it or just bitch online? You yanks always make a big deal about your right to keep and bear arms. Well, that right isn't worth much if once in a while you don't start actually putting bullets through the brains of those treasonous authoritarian fucks.
Parent
Re:Treason (Score:5, Insightful)
There's one small detail that you are overlooking.
Companies shouldn't be breaking the law just because the government tells them to!
And if they do, they SHOULD be punished! As should the people in the government that told them to break the law.
Parent
Re:Treason (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see a single mention of the rights of the citizens of the USA in there, just a lot of talk about business and government becoming best buddies and scratching each others' backs.
What happened to by the people, for the people?
These days it seems to be more "buy the people".
Parent
Re:Treason (Score:5, Insightful)
If your a stock holder in one of these telecoms wouldn't you think they had some obligation to verify that what they were doing was indeed legal (it wasn't) and that they did not face exposure due to it (they should be exposed, and face serious consequences)?
Parent
Re:Treason (Score:5, Insightful)
They took an oath to uphold the constitution of the U.S.A. This is a violation of that oath. I would call this treason, yes.
Parent
Re:Treason (Score:4, Insightful)
I beg to differ. The president most assuredly is guilty of high crimes, and the Congressmen that pass a bill to grant immunity to the president for violating his oath of office have themselves violated the Constitution and therefore their oaths of office by way of primary action and complicity. They will have raised the president above the law, assumed themselves above the law by granting such, and by doing so will have betrayed the American government and the people from which it derives its powers. That, sir, is treason.
It took over 200 years, but the Tories may be about to finally win the war...
Parent
What right do they have to grant immunity? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's like a rapist asking God for forgiveness. Only the victim has the right to forgive.
Re:What right do they have to grant immunity? (Score:4, Insightful)
You all talk here and you leave out streets and the congressmen.
I bet a month's salary (to be donated to ACLU) that the bill WILL pass.
Because none of you guys protested like your dads and moms did during Vietnam War.
Sitting on your collective asses will not achieve anything.
God save you guys from your president.
Parent
Stunning ignorance from my Rep (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been writing and calling my Congressman, Elliot Engel, on this issue for months. Yesterday I received an email from his staff stating he was happy to tell me there was no telecom immunity as of the March FISA vote. Upset that this completely neglected to mention how he planned to vote on this bill today, I called his office. The staffer said she'd never heard of FISA or telecom immunity. I called a different office, and they said they didn't know where he stood on the issue but they'd be happy to call me back once he voted. Talk about a joke. This has really been eye-opening to me.
Game over man, game over! (Score:5, Informative)
I was watching it live on CSPAN, pretty disgusting. Just remember who voted for this when elections come up.
Re:Game over man, game over! (Score:4, Informative)
Don't forget that two of the members of the Senate are running for president this November. Maybe one of them will impress / surprise us. Let's watch.
Parent
Re:Game over man, game over! (Score:4, Insightful)
"Maybe one of them will impress / surprise us. Let's watch."
Nah, they'll be too busy campaigning to show up to vote.
Parent
Re:Game over man, game over! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Game over man, game over! (Score:5, Informative)
"Obama and McCain are members of the Senate, which voted on this issue months ago."
On a completely different bill, S. 2248, which passed the Senate but was defeated in the House. This is H.R. 6304, being hailed and endorsed by House and Senate leaders in both parties as a great compromise.
"For the short-memoried among us, Obama opposes telecom immunity, and McCain supports it."
If the House can change its mind so drastically in four months, why not these men?
Parent
Lets fund some primary challengers (Score:5, Insightful)
On both sides of the isle. Both parties have lost their way and are now off in despotic cuckoo-land. Whatever we have become, if they have their way we will certainly be no Republic any longer. The only option is to boot every damn representative who votes for this bill regardless of party. They clearly do not represent a constitution of a nation ruled by laws and not men.
I say we start with Representatives Pelosi, Hoyer, and Bond.
tar and feather the sob's (Score:5, Insightful)
Heck, we should tar and feather them anyway...every presidential candidate should learn what it feels like before they reach that office.
Re:tar and feather the sob's (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:tar and feather the sob's (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like anti-American terrorist talk to me, attempting to incite/support violence against a standing congressman.
Please come with us, we have a few questions for you.
Parent
What will Obama do ? (Score:5, Insightful)
As the new de facto leader of the Democratic Party, and as a Senator, Barack Obama could stop this with a word. What will he say ? Will he stand up for liberty ? Or betray it before he even gets elected ?
You Deserve It (Score:5, Insightful)
You gave up your rights to feel safe because you don't want the responsibility.
You feel safe because you abdicated your responsibility to ensure the govt did not run over the people.
Look ! Its American Idol. You can quit reading now.
You are safe.
Final vote in the House (Score:5, Informative)
NAY 129
The full breakdown, showing which way each representative voted, will be available at Roll No. 437 [house.gov] in roughly an hour, when the Clerk of the House posts it.
nixon is not dead (Score:5, Insightful)
he's alive and well. in spirit, at least.
didn't FISA come from nixon era wiretapping?
so all the 'progress' we made since the nixon days has been overturned.
so, would that make bush the 'new nixon'?
Should we really expect any less?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Upshot of immunity (Score:5, Interesting)
Now they can be subpoenaed as a material witness against the Executive, and they'll enjoy far less protections against their having to produce evidence. No fifth amendment protections for one, since it couldn't incriminate them.
Not that this will actually happen, but it's a nice fantasy.
New laws (Score:5, Insightful)
I think we need a constitutional amendment. It should read:
"Any bill that comes before the Congress to be passed into law must be able to be summarized accurately and without loss of detail into 50 words or less. Once this is accomplished, the original multi-thousand page document shall be thrown out, and the 50-word summary presented for passage into law."
And perhaps another one:
"Anyone who attempts to add text to a bill that is completely at odds with or irrelevant to the bill's title shall be considered guilty of treason and put to death immediately in as brutal a way as possible."
Good. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm glad to see this finally happen.
Blackwater (Score:5, Insightful)
Granted, so far it's "only" about illegal wiretaps against U.S. citizens. But essentially this says "If the PotUS says 'do task A for me', then the company that does task A cannot and will not be held liable, even if it breaks the law."
So far that task has been (and might still be) "spy on U.S. citizens"
What's to stop the next task from being "rough up U.S. citizens who mouth off against the government"? Or "kill U.S. citizens who are a pain in the ass"?
Sure, that's a big slippery slope, but then again, I'm sure if you went back to say ... September 2000 and asked people on the street, they'd probably say that the U.S. government would NEVER allow such a thing. Of course, they'd probably say the same thing about torture (or whatever phrase you'd like to use instead), suspension of habeas corpus and a lot of other things that have happend in less than a decade. Even "small" stuff like purposely revealing the name and occupation of an active CIA agent working abroad.
Official: Obama Supports This! (Score:5, Informative)
Obama Officially Supports This [talkingpointsmemo.com]
He seems to view giving retroactive immunity to corporations for horrendous violations of US law and the constitution as something "disagreeable but potentially acceptable".
I think i'm going to vote for Mccain. I'm left by canadian standards, but my position means jack if the candidate lies to you. Mccain is honest.
I know he doesn't give a flying crap about me and is in bed with corporations. I know what to expect from him.
Press the button labeled "Submit" (Score:5, Interesting)
My Quote Chain:
"Ah, this is obviously some strange use of the word "safe" that I wasn't previously aware of."
--Arthur Dent
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
--Thomas Paine
"In the 1980s capitalism triumphed over communism. In the 1990s it triumphed over democracy."
--David Korten
You feel a whole lot more like you do now than you did when you used to.
Parent
"Protection of Persons Assisiting the Government" (Score:5, Informative)
Section 802(a) provides:
(4) the assistance alleged to have been provided . . . was --
(A) in connection with intelligence activity involving communications that was
(ii) designed to prevent or detect a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation of a terrorist attack, against the United States" and
(B) the subject of a written request or directive . . . indicating that the activity was
(ii) determined to be lawful.
Parent
IT'S NOT ILLEGAL (Score:5, Informative)
"If the PRESIDENT does it!" [google.com]
Parent
Re:IT'S NOT ILLEGAL (Score:5, Informative)
It was my hope that the article would be posted in time for people to contact their representatives, but also, the scumbags passed the bill [washingtonpost.com] at just about the same time that this article made the front page of /.. The roll call is not available on Thomas yet though.
Parent
Re:IT'S NOT ILLEGAL (Score:5, Interesting)
WaPo is more Psyop garbage. Like reading PRAVDA in 1976.
How do you "compromise" to allow violations of 4th amendment protection?
Parent
Re:IT'S NOT ILLEGAL (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what I've been trying to figure out. What the telcos were doing was illegal when they did it. Granting immunity, on the hopes that they'll know it's illegal and behave better next time is asinine.
They were well aware that they weren't being provided appropriate paperwork the last time otherwise, they'd be itching to have their day in court. Letting them off the hook for what was obviously illegal is hardly teaching them a lesson for the future.
Really, what ought to happen is the people at the top making the decision to comply with the illegal orders should go to prison.
Parent
Re:IT'S NOT ILLEGAL (Score:5, Informative)
In the military, we are given a class during basic training on how to respond to superiors who give illegal orders.
Examples are given of what constitutes and illegal order, and what the proper phrasing of the response should be. Granted, you will probably end up at some kind of punitive action review, if not full court-martial for disobeying or refusing to obey a superior officer, yet, you have your out. However, if enough evidence or witnesses are available to show that the order that was given was in fact illegal, then the superior who gave said order is brought up on charges. At least that's the way it's supposed to work.
Now, if all the telcos that did this activity, were to show that they were authorized or requested by the president to do this illegal activity then wouldn't that potentially be fuel for the fire to have criminal charges brought against the President? ie - add to the charges of impeachment?
Regardless of his reasoning, committing an illegal act is still committing an illegal act, and 9/11 did not change the constitution.
Parent
Re:IT'S NOT ILLEGAL (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:"Protection of Persons Assisiting the Governmen (Score:5, Insightful)
(ii) determined to be lawful.
a) the Legislative branch instructing the Judicial branch to obey the Executive branch
b) an Executive branch that essentially makes its own law on what's legal and not
c) creating government-sponsored thugs outside the law, free from the restrictions of the government
d) all of the above
Parent
Re:"Protection of Persons Assisiting the Governmen (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Press the button labeled "Submit" (Score:5, Insightful)
Corrupt government officials passing legislation favoring corrupt companies is the antithesis of capitalism.
Parent
Re:Press the button labeled "Submit" (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Press the button labeled "Submit" (Score:4, Informative)
-Benito Mussolini
Parent
Re:Press the button labeled "Submit" (Score:5, Informative)
Mussolini never said nor wrote that, nor did Giovani Gentile, so I'm not sure where this quote comes from.
Likewise, in Italian Fascism, "corporation" means a vertical trade union, like a syndicate, and is akin to guild socialism. The people at the top of the corporation are the "masters" and the people at the bottom are the "apprentices" with varying levels of competancy in between.
Votes for the Chamber of Deputies are then done by occupation -- so the transportation syndicate is comprised of airline and rail workers, for instance. They then vote for members to represent them in the parliament.
Only people who are experts in their field craft laws and regulations, which are then given to approval. The "dictator" then has ultimate responsibility to carry it out.
Frankly, it sounds a hell of a lot better than our current popularity contest that leads to lawyers from dairy country trying to pass laws regarded IT policy, for instance.
Not that I'm a fascist, I just read everything about them I could get out of my university library 'cause i didn't have tv.
Parent
Hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Well regulated markets work the best. Without regulation, you cannot assign cost to environmental damage, or prevent greed from wrecking society. Hierarchies will always get top heavy with power and corruption. If that hierarchy is in a corporation, there's nothing the public can do about it. If they are in a functioning democracy, at least the public can vote corruption out during the next election cycle.
So, a healthy but limited government keeping corporate power in check will yield many of the benefits of capitalism. I think in order to do this we need to introduce the separation of business and state.
Public officials should not be allowed to seek employment after their service with any firm that does business with the government. If you don't like it, don't run for office. You're running because you want to participate as a proud citizen of our democracy, not so you can enjoy power and kickbacks. Right?
Parent
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Informative)
That is not capitalism, but corporatism [wikipedia.org].
"Without regulation, you cannot assign cost to environmental damage or prevent greed from wrecking society."
What is this based on? Do you have any supporting evidence that "greed wrecks society", or should we just accept what you say?
"Hierarchies will always get top heavy with power and corruption."
Corruption only becomes a concern to the public when it is backed by force, something which only the government can apply.
"If they are in a functioning democracy, at least the public can vote corruption out during the next election cycle."
And that official will be replaced by another corrupt official. As long as the government is able to manipulate the economy, individuals and businesses will flock to them to get manipulation in their favor (otherwise they risk seeing unfavorable legislation forced against them).
"So, a healthy but limited government keeping corporate power in check will yield many of the benefits of capitalism."
The ends do not justify the means, ever. A few temporary positives are not worth giving up all your rights.
"I think in order to do this we need to introduce the separation of business and state."
I can agree with that, although you seem to think the fault lies with the businesses, whereas for me, because the state is the entity actually applying the force on the public, I see the state as to blame.
Parent
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Corruption only becomes a concern to the public when it is backed by force, something which only the government can apply.
[snip]
And that official will be replaced by another corrupt official. As long as the government is able to manipulate the economy, individuals and businesses will flock to them to get manipulation in their favor (otherwise they risk seeing unfavorable legislation forced against them).
The problem is that even if the state cannot manipulate the market, there will still be business interests attempting to manipulate the government to effectively enforce said business's
monopoly. You do correctly identify the end problem though being the state. The state must not be corruptible, or corporations will work tirelessly to corrupt it. It is as simple as that.
And please do note that the state does not have a monopoly on force. Physical force, sure, but sufficiently large corporations have a surprising amount of market force, which can sometimes be just as effective as physical force.
(Consider a cabal of the worlds largest 30 or so corporations, and how they would be able to manipulate completely unregulated markets if no general regulation (such as anti-trust laws) were also present.).
Properly working regulation may keep corporations in check, but it still requires a state that the businesses really cannot corrupt. So the state is to blame for being corruptible, but the corporations are to blame for exploiting that fact. End result though is that the state needs to change.
Parent
Re:Press the button labeled "Submit" (Score:5, Insightful)
You forgot the most important quote that should be on your chain:
"Any government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you've got." - attributed to Thomas Jefferson
To translate for those hard of reason: "Any government big enough to redistribute the fruits of other people's labor to YOU by force, is big enough to take everything it wants from you, also by force. It is also big enough to run your life, and kill you or enslave you on a whim or a trumped up charge. It can also watch you and make a panopticon of your daily life. And you will like it, and clamor for it to change only enough that you won't notice the ubiquity of the abuses. Yes indeed, you will... like it." - Me
Parent
Re:Press the button labeled "Submit" (Score:5, Insightful)
"Any government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you've got." - attributed to Thomas Jefferson
Doesn't sound anything like him. Mark Twain perhaps.
Thing is, most of the "smaller government" people want government out of the places they want their private craven, corrupt, superstituous, hateful ideologies to rule instead. They consider it "judicial activism" when the courts say that government should stay out of proscriptive definitions of marriage, for example.
Parent