Bush Demands Amnesty for Spying Telecoms 420
The Bush administration and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are poised to square off in front of a San Francisco federal judge Tuesday to litigate the constitutionality of legislation immunizing the nation's telecoms from lawsuits accusing them of helping the government spy on Americans without warrants. "'The legislation is an attempt to give the president the authority to terminate claims that the president has violated the people's Fourth Amendment rights,' the EFF's [Cindy] Cohn says. 'You can't do that.'"
If Bush wants it... (Score:4, Insightful)
...why doesn't he just issue a blanket pardon?
My guess: he doesn't want to take responsibility for getting the telcos off the hook.
What could... (Score:2, Insightful)
You can't do that? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure you can!
Just have Poppy buy you into office so that the people that have the strings attached to important parts of your body can pull what they want, when the want.
Seriously, we have just witnessed the greatest bald-faced rape of the Constitution since ... forever. The thing (or the most recent thing) that turns my stomach is that there is a very good chance they will get away with it.
The tense is wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually he did that. You can't say that "You can't do that", because he did that. The Bush Administration is asking for retrospective immunity - that's a lot worse than asking for permission to do it.
The rest of the world is watching this one closely as well - it's not just the US that's interested in the outcome of this incident.
GrpA
This isn't a criminal case. (Score:5, Insightful)
... why doesn't [Bush] just issue a blanket pardon?
Perhaps because pardons apply to criminal cases (government vs. person-to-be-punished-for-wrongdoing) while these are civil cases (wronged people demanding damages be paid by those who wronged them). I think the pardon power only applies to the former.
Let's Get Serious (Score:4, Insightful)
Haven't we gone over this before? (Score:4, Insightful)
Doesn't someone need to be harmed in order to sue? And in order to prove you were harmed, you'd need to have access to state secrets, which can't happen in the new America. Therefore, no harm, no standing to sue, no case.
I don't think you can sue for a general affront to the Constitution.
Re:If Bush wants it... (Score:3, Insightful)
...why doesn't he just issue a blanket pardon?
Maybe because a pardon could be seen as admitting something illegal happened. Bush has always seemed hellbent on elevating the executive branch. Early on I assumed it was because it meant more power for him, but even now he's just out to vindicate another terrible republican president who said "...when the president does it that means that it is not illegal."
Silly gun nut (Score:3, Insightful)
You're full of shit. If you really were protecting freedom you'd have done something by now. Bush has violated more freedoms than any president before and you gun nuts have done absolutely nothing. I call your bluff!
Re:Interesting timing (Score:5, Insightful)
Before you really answer, think about all the stuff that you write in email to close friends, or in sms to loved ones, or over the phone. All that embarrassing stuff that isn't meant for any audience outside you and the receiving end. All THAT stuff becomes open.
I might be naive in my thinking, but why spend billions on listening to everyone's conversations when you could spend the same money to make their lives good. Happy content people don't go blowing themselves up or shoot random (or not so random) people by the bucketful. Happy content people lead happy content and productive lives. Eavesdropping on everyone won't make everyone happy.
Re:If Bush wants it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Silly gun nut (Score:3, Insightful)
There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order. Ed Howdershelt
We are not as nutty as the anti-gun "nuts" like to label us.
Re:Let's Get Serious (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't kid yourself. Nerds are good with technology, not politics. These people are as good at bending laws and manipulating courts as the average slashdotter is at recompiling his kernel. Just as the average politician's political expertise doesn't help them at all in the world of technology, our technological expertise doesn't help us at all in their world.
Re:You can't do that? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hoover and the Red scare?
What we did to the Japanese under Roosevelt after Perl Harbor?
Hell, what we did to the Germans during the first WW
This isn't the first time we (Americans) looked and saw the enemy in every corner and it won't be the last.
People that say Bush is the worst we ever had have no sense of history
Re:Interesting timing (Score:5, Insightful)
Telescreens are now being installed in your house to make sure that you do not transmit terrorist information when using the aforementioned tool in your home.
Re:What would John McClane do? (Score:1, Insightful)
Yet, his childhood "pal" Osama Bin Laden is still free.
How long has Bush been "Pal'n around" with terrorists?
Since the Republicans want to blame Obama for Ayers misdeeds, this is a legitimate question now.
Re:Silly gun nut (Score:4, Insightful)
A bit off topic, but you both have valid points.
So called "gun nuts" often couldn't care less about the erosion of many other freedoms including those involving free speech and unlawful search and seizure, and many actually think that the war on drugs is a good thing, etc.
On the flipside, the so called, "hippy liberals" want all the freedom in the world when it doesn't involve guns.
What needs to happen is both types of people need to get together(over a budweiser and some granola perhaps?) and realize that it's EVERYONE who is having their freedoms taken away.
A society works best when it's citizens have as many freedoms as possible, in my humble opinion of course. What we need is cooperation and education, not fear mongering from either side.
Not just Bush's fight (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama voted for it too you know.
If he were really against it as some of the more delusion supporters claim, then he would issue a statement at this time supporting making it unconstitutional. Expect no statement.
Re:Interesting timing (Score:2, Insightful)
wait just one minute there.
using your logic lets go through a scenario.
Rape. I'm sure that no one has to say how terrible an experience that is. and it is almost always males attacking females.
we can stop rape completely. we just need to completely remove the genitalia of every single man. without the tools to commit the crime there will be no possibility of rape happening.
it will be completely stopped.
Is that worth it to you?
now i hear you saying, "that is completely different and barbaric". no it's not. you want to take away everyone's right to something just so that you can stop the >1% of the population that uses that same right for deviant behavior. it's asinine.
the right to privacy is no different.
if you want to give away your rights that fine.
Don't try to take away mine!
Government secrets AKA covering their asses (Score:5, Insightful)
The administration also says the immunity is warranted because the lawsuits threaten to expose government secrets.
This was why immunity should NOT be warranted! And before you start screaming national security, exactly what kind of information that could be brought out in a civil case which would damage national security? Methods? Competent terrorists aren't going to be caught by dragnet style filtering anyway unless its technical prowess is far beyond what most experts agree is currently possible.
This is either protecting corporate cronies, protecting themselves, or most likely both.
Re:Silly gun nut (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush has violated more freedoms than any president before and you gun nuts have done absolutely nothing. I call your bluff!
This is the most historically ignorant thing I've read in awhile. Bush is way, way down on that list. Wilson goes at the top. Above Bush we'd find FDR, Jackson, Nixon, LBJ... and probably a few others I don't know about.
Re:Interesting timing (Score:3, Insightful)
At the very least, it means there are two sides to the "eavesdropping" question. It's a question for thoughtful discussion, not the sloganeering and bumper-sticker Constitutional Law pronouncements everyone has heard a thousand times.
Eavesdropping on terrorists could save hundreds or thousands of lives. That's a benefit that has to be weighed against the costs. But most of the partisan discussions on this subject don't fairly acknowledge that benefit. Terrorism is real -- the terrorists have reminded us of that again.
The preventable damage caused by terrorism can be seen stacked in body bags on the news broadcasts (again). What was the damage caused by the eavesdropping? Are we all 100% sure the eavesdropping is so much worse that it could never even be considered, even with safeguards? I'm not.
Re:What would John McClane do? (Score:3, Insightful)
He'd catch the terrorists first, worry about paperwork and suspensions afterwards.
And yet FISA already let the government do that.
Re:What would John McClane do? (Score:5, Insightful)
And as long as he filed his paperwork no later than 72 hours after starting surveillance, there would be no problem under FISA. This "we need every power imaginable with no oversight or you're a pot smoking terrorist loving liberal commie bastard" false dichotomy has just got to stop. FISA was more than enough as it was and this new legislation is a power grab, plain and simple.
Re:Interesting timing (Score:5, Insightful)
hopeless => suicidal killer
There are plenty unhappy people in America but no homegrown suicide bombers. What we don't have is a system that explicitly sets out to systematically oppress and render voiceless segments of the population - that is what's behind suicide bombers, because it takes away any value life has.
Then for the most part we get into a bullshit pissing contest of "your voice can't be heard because you're violent" and "we turn to violence because you won't let us be heard" to avoid anyone having to admit they're wrong.
Re:You have no constitutional right to privacy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Interesting timing (Score:3, Insightful)
Eavesdropping on terrorists could save hundreds or thousands of lives.
But the problem is that we don't know who they are. You need to listen to millions of conversations to have a chance of getting down to what you are interested in.
And lets face it, it's not like they aren't going to be talking in coded messages to one another. I am sure that "Hey Terrorist friend, that bomb you asked for is running a day late, but we will still get it down there and blow shit up good" might sound like "Hi Bob, I will be picking up the milk on the way home, but I am running a little late."
As for the thought that there is some lowly paid government worker listening in on a conversation over the phone I have while away on business with my partner? Yeah, great. That just really works for me.
I hate to follow to logical conclusions, but correct me if I am wrong here:
1) Eaves dropping law gets passed.
2) Terrorist learn that they can be snooped on via phone.
3) Terrorists change communication method to avoid snooping.
4) Everyone else gets snooped on as the law is already enacted.
Did I miss something obvious?
Re:Silly gun nut (Score:2, Insightful)
Innocent until... eaves-dropped-on? (Score:4, Insightful)
For the record, I am neither in America or American.
Re:Not just Bush's fight (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that he did (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is exactly that kind of case in point... this last Presidential administration -- and Congress, too -- have done quite a few things lately that they probably can't do... legally. The fact that they did do them has no bearing on the law.
Re:Interesting timing (Score:3, Insightful)
What I do have a problem with is effectively taking off any and all controls about who does what and when. A blanket "telco's can't get into trouble" makes it much too easy for anyone to tune into anything they want.
Re:The tense is wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Interesting timing (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure no one violated their rights by eavesdropping on their communications.
That's such an ignorant argument. They could have just as easily used walkie-talkies available at almost any department store, or spent some money and got some military grade communications for the cost of a few hand grenades. Or cell phones. Or satellite phones. Or wi-fi. Or broadband internet. You going to scan every frequency? Monitor every mode of communication? And it's not like they were sending detailed plans back and forth on their Blackberrys, it was tactical comm.
The type of wholesale spying the Bush administration is trying to promote and you seem to be trying to protect not only undermines the Constitution, it doesn't work. All the monitoring we have in place around the world didn't stop these yo-yo's. And it won't stop the next group. So what are you going to do then? Your philosophy is a failure. It's a false sense of security that provides no value in protection.
Combating terrorism by spying on Americans. Brilliant.
Re:So which box are you on? (Score:3, Insightful)
I call bullshit. They only support candidates who are pro-gun. They aren't pushing forward any political agenda other then gun ownership. The NRA could give a rats ass about political freedoms outside of this. This should be apparent in their wide spread support for our current administration. If they were so liberty oriented then they would have been campaigning against Republicans quite some time ago.
Re:You can't do that? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, Bush has a strong case for worst ever based on the combination of his catastrophes.
Sure, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, and Nixon each had a hand in a mismanaged war. John Adams, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR each violated civil liberties to stop alleged enemies of the state. Many presidents have overseen the causes of recessions and other economic maladies. How many have been through all 3? (I can't think of any.) How many have polled approval ratings in the low 20s? (Nixon and Harding since polling began almost 90 years ago.) It's pretty easy to objectively put Bush in the bottom 3 presidents now, without judging the extent of the current economic troubles.
If the predictions that this is the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression are at all accurate (and macro-economic predictions are often self-fulfilling for psychological reasons), and the many ethical allegations against Bush prove true, Bush would have a strong case as the worst president ever, on relatively objective grounds as far as the matter goes.
That is to say nothing of how far he has departed from the philosophies and policies he and his party campaigned on.
Re:Silly gun nut (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, I write this not because I agree with Lincoln's policies; but because I think the "free pass" characterization is seriously questionable. In a number of respects, the civil war was a uniquely threatening conflict and, if they apply anywhere, the place in American history where such powers would apply.
Well said! (Score:4, Insightful)
What the hell are you blathering about? We DO in fact know that the actions of the telcos (and the government people who setup / enabled it) were acting illegally. There is no reasonable question that this is true. Though, by our own rules, it will need to be proved in court... which is a different matter.
As for taking terrorism seriously, do you? As an individual, you are quite literally much more likely -- by orders of magnitude! -- to die in your bathtub than from a terrorist attack. So why aren't you advocating government cameras in everybody's bathroom? It would save so many lives! More than any "war on terrorism" has any chance of saving.
If you think that is a ridiculous example, then you are beginning to get the point. Because it is real.
Re:Interesting timing (Score:2, Insightful)
This argument relies on pretending to know that warrants are always available for any situation where the conversation may be useful to save lives. Agents fighting terrorism will tell you they are not always available for those situations. People have died because no warrant was available in time.
Also, there's no need for an "anything goes with no consequences, ever" policy. No one has proposed such a policy. A policy requiring independent, after-the-fact oversight and examination of the choices of the agents involved would be adequate. Also, any evidence gathered would be excluded from court proceedings.
If agents were found to be malicious, they could face charges. If they were found to be careless, they could face discipline. If they made an honest mistake, they could be told to be more careful next time. If they took a good-faith chance and it didn't pay off, they could be encouraged. And if they ended up saving lives, they could be commended.
It seems like a reasonable policy that might work.
Re:Interesting timing (Score:4, Insightful)
Why can't we save lives and follow the law? What was so desperate that we couldn't change the laws during the 8+ years that this was going on?
This program was against the law and the constitution of the United States of America. Period. This is not in serious dispute, that's why the immunity deal was necessary. Immunity was granted to prevent this from ever going to trial and bringing out the facts of the case. If everything was above board, why not prove it in a court of law?
And you are right, there is little in my post about terrorism. It wasn't about terrorism. It was about our government and how they are trampling the laws and traditions of this country.
The choice is not breaking laws to catch terrorists or doing nothing and letting them kill Americans; that's a false dichotomy. We can, and have for many, many years, held to the rule of law and protected our citizens. We can continue to do so.
The choice is protecting our citizens while adhering to the rule of law or not. This government has chosen not to. If the laws were insufficient, they had the option of trying to change those laws. They chose not to. This is completely unacceptable in any society that wishes to be considered democratic and those responsible need to be held to account.
Re:Interesting timing (Score:5, Insightful)
Those agents would be lying. FISA allowed for retroactive warrants to be issued 72 hours after the fact.
Obama will fix it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, he already voted for FISA, so I guess he won't. Damn.
Re:You can't do that? (Score:5, Insightful)
ok, now flame away about how I have no idea what I am talking about.
yeah, and others mentioned, that whole Red Scare / McCarthyism was pretty nasty.
Re:You can't do that? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So which box are you on? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sue the government, not the parties (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, yes, that's the desired effect. We don't want corporate co-conspirators helping the government do covert and unconstitutional things. The telecoms, like all big companies, have entire legal departments and no doubt numerous policies about these sorts of things, and they almost certainly had fair notice that what they were doing was at best fuzzy and most likely blatantly illegal. I've been all for suing their asses off since day 1, and even more so since their government cronies tried to cover them.
Call it a deterrent, call it vengeance, but I call it justice.
Re:If Bush wants it... (Score:4, Insightful)
And Bush et al would much prefer there is no further investigation at all.
Because:
1) I am SURE none of those telcos would have participated in this activity without complete and total assurances from the Bush administration...which these companies will produce if they think for a second they will be convicted.
2) It seems quite likely that any convictions will occur during the Obama administration - which almost certainly won't pardon the telcos. Why would Obama put his neck out, for things which didn't even occur during his administration?
Nixon (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You can't do that? (Score:5, Insightful)
In short: Fuck him.
Fuck everyone involved.
The immunity needs to be nullified, and nullified now. It's a blatant violation of the constitution. If a bunch of telecom execs and secretive politicians aren't in jail getting gang raped before this is all over, then we might as well just pull the constitution out of its glass case, grab every copy of it and the bill of rights, toss them in pile and toss in a lit match.
Yes, I really think it's that bad, and fuck anyone that says otherwise. They obviously don't understand (or worse, simply don't care) what's at stake if the precedent of violating the Bill of Rights with absolutely no consequences manages to stand.
Fuck them all. Take their immunity away and fuck them all like the money-grubbing, self-serving whores that they are.
Re:You can't do that? (Score:4, Insightful)
What context? That we have can lapse into complete paranoia from time to time? That blind nationalism can blind of more important matters of ethics and morality? That we enjoy dehumanizing people different than us?
I like the US, but I have a hard time identifying the rational of those who sit around saying we can't do any wrong, or that we are "the best country on earth". Nationalism is a proven evil, no good has ever come of it. We are just another country in the world, and someday we will be gone, just like all states. America is an arbitrary thing, a mere concept, and not worth forsaking human dignity and rights over, as they are far more important than a mere symbol.
We've made mistakes, and we refuse to learn from them. How many of the Japanese locked in camps, and deprived of their rights, were a serious threat to America? How many people in Guantanamo are a threat? Was Iraq really a threat to us? Was McCarthyism really a good thing?
We can do evil, and thus we have to be vigilant. Bush is proof of this. We let him get away with far too much in the name of faceless (and largely baseless) fear. Just like all of the things mentioned.
But then again I'd rather the terrorists "win" than compromise any individual rights, or any standard we profess to believe in.
Re:You can't do that? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Presidential rankings discussed on Wikipedia (Score:4, Insightful)
Hey, don't count Bush out yet -- he's still got a good two months to make it happen!
Obsfucation and an Ominous Orator (Score:2, Insightful)
The main difference between then and now is that common people who would otherwise have no clue about what went on now have access to the discrepancies, and other peoples' interpretations and compilations of them. Sure, no one in America loved the Japanese immediately after Perl Harbor, but most of them also weren't aware of the economic warfare that was going on leading up to the attack, so they felt vindicated in ripping the constitution when it came to the Japanese Americans. It was controlled ignorance. It's much harder to do these days.
On a slightly scary, related note, now that we have a President-Elect who built his campaign using the internet, and who was able to control leaks so tightly that no one outside the circle knew who was being talked about for appointments, what else might he be able to hide under his hat? I'm a mild fan of his, barring the FISA vote, but the ability to direct his staff with such precision on information policy might not bode well if he has a shady agenda. I suggest we watch closely and listen where we can.
Re:You can't do that? (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree -- he and FDR were the worst presidents with regards to federalism/states' rights.
Re:So which box are you on? (Score:3, Insightful)
The NRA works to defend the 2nd Amendment; the ACLU works to defend the other nine (in the Bill of Rights). I see nothing wrong with this, except that the ACLU ought to care about #2 too.
Re:Interesting timing (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:You can't do that? (Score:3, Insightful)
The execs did as ordered by the politicians.
I'd wouldn't mind if Bush was gangraped in prison over his presidency and his crimes to mankind and western civilization. However, the execs only did as they were ordered to do. Is punishing people for failing to stand up against the law a good policy? In a democracy (or republic with general elections), the right thing to do is to expose the laws and the politicians and then hope the public will care when they vote in the next election.
Re:Interesting timing (Score:1, Insightful)
People have died because no warrant was available in time.
Then they should die. Jefferson may have been heartless, but he was certainly wise, when he said that the tree of liberty must be watered every now and then with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
To save the maximum number of lives, we need a totalitarian state. Do you think that this would be worth the price?
Re:You can't do that? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the point he was making was that if you give up your rights then you might as well have let the terrorists win. The belief that the only way to beat terrorism is to become like them is one of the most worrying things I see in people and their governments.
The expression 'Live free or die trying' springs to mind: Probably the easiest way to defeat the terrorists is to create armed militias, to lock up anyone who looks at a US flag funny, to subject every citizen to searches at every available opportunity to imprison without fair trial anyone and everyone who has the most tenuous of links to anyone tenuously linked to the perpetration terror. Finally it would be necessary to destroy the peoples and the homelands of peoples who would seek to harm us. I've heard statements like that last sentence before, care to guess where from? The choice we have is either to become like them, or to stand bold, proud and defiant in front of our freedoms.
People talk of giving their lives for their country, and that is what you must be willing to do, not on the front lines of a war, but in your own homes, at work and in your daily lives. You must be willing to accept that there will always be someone who hates you irrationally and will seek to kill you, and you have to accept that in order to enjoy freedom. You are competing against people who have a fanatical belief in what they are doing, and who will willingly give their lives for the cause. We too must believe in our freedoms above all else, and must be willing to give our lives for the cause of their preservation.
Re:You can't do that? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or it might just mean your country withdraws troops from some of the regimes it supports. Which "terrorists" are you referring to? You seem to have fallen prey to the US governments rhetoric that they are some united, implaccable world-wide organisation? Are you talking about Hamas in Palestine, who want their own state? Are you talking about Al Quaeda who wanted US troops out of Saudi where they protect a powerful, oppressive monarchy of all things? Are you talking about some of the Indian groups that want Muslims dead or out of the country? Are you talking about resistance fighters in Iraq who want Sunni control / Shia control / independent Kurdish lands / US troops out of the country? Which and who are you talking about? I would like to know which "terrorist" group you think has plans to invade and occupy the USA, please?
Re:Silly gun nut (Score:1, Insightful)
Government cannot grant freedom, because freedom precedes government. That is why we call them "inalienable" (or natural) rights: because they are moral and just no matter what the power pyramid says. If freedom was subjective and defined by the law, then freedom would be arbitrary and meaningless. (Indeeed, that is exactly what most of the power elite want you to believe.)
Put another way, freedom is the natural state of human existance. In the absence of centralized power and its special right to employ coercion, there is 100% freedom. From there, government can only reduce the amount of freedom, never add to it. In the case where a guarantee of some sort is issued (such as the amendments you mentioned), it is not a grant or gift of "extra freedom" but merely a limit on what freedoms centralized power may attack.
To be sure, the organization holding the unique ability to employ coercion over the individual as their means (government) cannot logically be a source of freedom (defined as the absence of a coercive master) for that individual. The source of freedom is simply human nature: the desire to be free of a coercive master.
Re:You can't do that? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that as civilians we were subject to any "orders" other than a proper court order, and even then we have the ability to disregard that court order, but at the expense of punishment. Doing whatever someone with a badge says is exactly how you go from democracy to totalitarianism.
Re:What would John McClane do? (Score:1, Insightful)
Calling defenders of the Fourth Amendment Nazis?
Too.... much..... irony.... ARGH!
Re:You have no constitutional right to privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
"No where in the constitution is there an express 'right to privacy', this is a fact, if you disagree try reading the document."
That is indeed a fact. On the other hand, if you *understand* the constitution (as opposed to just skimming over the words while moving your lips), you know that the founders understood that rights are inherent, that no one can take them away, and that it would be impossible to enumerate this infinite number of rights. They revisited this idea in the ninth amendment after listing some of the more important rights in case you forgot what they wrote at the beginning, but I see it didn't help in your case.