FISA Bill Vote Today, With Telco Immunity 465
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.'"
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.
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.
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.
Good Luck with that (Score:3, Interesting)
As a Canadian, I have come to expect the worst from the US Government in most cases, and in most cases it has failed to disappoint. I sincerely hope your representatives listen and this bill is defeated, but I expect it will pass with flying colours. After all the US has "the best government money can buy" :P
Whatever happens down there south of the border, we can expect the Tories to enact similar legislation up here sooner or later. Finlandization is well underway, sadly...
Um, yes... (Score:3, Interesting)
The US (and other) gov. has been endorsing and even encouraging this for years. Look at Echelon, Carnivore, etc., etc.
Re:tar and feather the sob's (Score:3, Interesting)
I think starting their term with 30 days in county jail, and a required 30 days service year in any of the lower ranked civil service jobs available in any district. Yes, that was 6 work weeks. It might help them stay just a little more humble and in tune with the people that they are representing. If you have to eat your PB&J with joey who has three kids and a mortgage, and the secretary that can't afford a car, I'm willing to bet you remember it.
Sure they can do it, we have plenty of police and secret service to guard those who need it. No, they are NOT too busy to do this as it is directly related to the job they were voted in to do. when they are too busy to meet with the public they represent, they are too busy to be in office... recall vote etc. is then required.
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.
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?
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?
Re:"Protection of Persons Assisiting the Governmen (Score:3, Interesting)
authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007 and
Good Christ, are you serious? If that isn't clear evidence that something shady was going on during that period, I don't know what is...
Re:Final vote in the House (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting that Ron Paul didn't bother to vote.
Re:Lets fund some primary challengers (Score:2, Interesting)
The part of America who puts these people in office does not care about the constitution any more than the representatives they're voting on. They want to be lied to and placated. Shoving the truth in their face will get you a swift "GTFO" and won't change their minds one bit.
Sad, but true.
Re:Game over man, game over! (Score:1, Interesting)
If Obama opposes telecom immunity, why didn't he vote Nay on S. 2248?
Re:Treason (Score:3, Interesting)
The reason us "Yanks" still have that right is because we're intelligent enough to use it only as our last option. Apparently you are in a hurry to use violence at every opportunity. Maybe it's why your rulers didn't see fit to give you that right.
Re:Good question (Score:3, Interesting)
Given that they're both endorsed by the CFR you can be sure that no matter who gets elected they will continue to pursue policies designed to bring about a single world government.
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.
Re:"Protection of Persons Assisiting the Governmen (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Final vote in the House (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Treason (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a question. What if the law is deemed constitutional, based on the interpretation that ex post facto refers specifically to laws designed to retroactively increase punishment?
The big, big, big issue here is that this law is fucking with the foundation of our legal system. It would be similar to people passing a constitutional amendment that makes the President King, or something similar. At that point, the SCOTUS has nothing to argue about anymore, except state a personal opinion that the amendment is hogwash.
Sometimes, some laws are so bad that they cannot be rectified by working within the system.
Re:"Protection of Persons Assisiting the Governmen (Score:3, Interesting)
It's pretty simple. They have to pass this bill. Otherwise the telcos will roll the administration in court to prevent losing the cases.
It will reveal that a lot of things were done to put a lot of money into the hands of a few people. And the bottom line is that we need to take that money back, since it was obtained dishonestly.
However, it's been part of the game as long as governments/businesses have been around to declare war and game the system. The problem is that they infringed upon rights, they broke the law, and now they are trying to retroactively change the law. It doesn't work that way.
Re:Official: Obama Supports This! (Score:2, Interesting)