Senate Committee Votes to Authorize Warrentless Wiretapping 927
LividBlivet writes, "The Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill that not only authorizes, but extends, US warrentless wiretapping. No accountability. No oversight. No definition of 'terrorist.' No record of who voted for what. Great way to devolve a democratic republic into a fascist theocracy. Me worried? Yea." Here is the text of SB2453, the National Security Surveillance Act (PDF). Confusingly, the committee also voted out two other bills, one of which "all but declares the warrantless wiretapping illegal," according to Wired.
Vote! (Score:5, Insightful)
Your first chance, should you disagree with these strategies (rights erosion, elimination of civil liberties, etc...etc...etc...) is to exercise your Constitutionally given rights (for now) and vote this November for a change. Elect those individuals that will best represent the people, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights at home and abroad. Make these people responsible for what they say and do by linking their jobs to their implemented law and take back your country.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exit polls were the gold standard of election forcasting...until 2000. Funny...that's when all the trouble started, isn't it?
Re:Vote! (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely you aren't so blind as to think this is a republicrat vs. demopublican issue. They both approved the war, they both approved the patriot act. There's no real dissent, except for a handful of folks -- like Ron Paul (Libertarian in Republican clothing)
As long as YOU keep voting for either one of the two halves of the dominant party, we're all screwed.
The "football team" voters that root for "their" team regardless of what they stand for, and rationalize everything their team does, are the real cause of all our problems.
Re:Vote! (Score:5, Insightful)
Your position seems based on ideals rather than rationality.
Retort: the idealistic voters who ignore the fact that we have a two party political system and, instead of choosing the better of the two candidates available, choose to throw their votes away and allow the conservative side to gain a numeric advantage are the real cause of all our (political) problems.
Note: Neo-Con takeover of the republican party. Salient point: existing parties can be almost completely reformed to new goals and ideals. Conclusion: possible to work within the system to achieve a goal.
Re:Vote! (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
The problem with choosing the "best" fit is that neither may do a single thing to represent you as a voter. There may be no "best" candidate. Personally, I vote third party as a last resort. By the time I get to that point, either a third party candidate gets my vote or nobody does.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Libertarian or any other 3rd party is a complete WASTE in a presidential election. I generally favor the ideas of non Dem/GOP candidates as they are more realistic. However, the 3rd party groups need to win some local elections before they can lay any claim to being a superior choice.
Lets talk when there are more than 30 Libertarians in the House....show the country you actually have convinced some people to vote fo
Re:Vote! (Score:4, Insightful)
I have a friend that says the same thing to me all the time. Like I'm somehow the reason Kerry didn't win. Funny, at the time of the election my parents told me the same thing, only with the names reversed.
I didn't like either of them. That's why I voted third-party. Otherwise, I wouldn't have voted at all.
Between a Fascist and a Communist I picked neither, and apparently that makes me the bad guy? I may never get my ideal candidate into office, but at least I voted my conscience. Maybe if other people did the same thing there'd be some change in the government.
Your premises are wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
Only while people like you continue sitting on your arse doing nothing but insisting that the status quo is the best that can be expected. Politics is a participation sport.
You're making the assumption that it matters which of the two main parties you vote for, the policies remain the same. The biggest difference seems to be the way they want to pay for things, either taxation or i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone who thinks the US two-party "democracy" i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't give me any malarky about voting for the "lesser of two evils". If you do that, you are VOTING FOR EVIL, and you deserve this broken government.
I am tired of hearing this. (Score:4, Insightful)
Secondly, if the democrats actually defended civil liberties, then I would start considering the lesser of two evils. But they are just as bad as the republicans when it comes to throwing out our freedoms to appear tough on crime or terrorism. Furthermore the progressives have gotten as bad as the religious right when it comes to forcing everyone to live the way they want them to. The only civil rights issue that the democrats still defend are equal rights for gays, and other minorites. While I give them credit for this, it doesn't matter much if you are systematically eliminating everyone's rights.
As an aside, you cannot blame liberals voting for third parties for the result of the last presidential election or for democrats poor showing in congress. That is due to more people voting republican, not third party.
I vote for the candidate I think is best in almost every election. The only time I vote for the lesser of two evils is when all the following are true:
The last presidential election was the very few times that has happened in many years.
If the only "realistic option" is to vote for a major party, then we might as well admit that there is no solution to the problems that are facing the country today, because they are the ones who created them and they show no signs of changing track. I don't think that voting third party is a waste, but even if it is, I would rather waste my vote than be complicit in the destruction of our country.
Re:I am tired of hearing this. (Score:5, Informative)
Approval voting is the least complicated of all the voting systems that gives a fair result. IRV is far too complicated for the type of people who will accidentally vote for Buchanan.
To implement it, we have to get the local races to use it first. So go to a town hall meeting once in a while and bring up approval voting. It's the only way it will ever happen.
Re:Vote! (Score:4, Insightful)
Both bloody parties are OWNED by the powers that be now.
It doesn't matter which side you vote for except on trivial side issues (like abortion).
For everything that matters, we have one party, owned by big business and the wealthy.
The republicans choose from 5 to 7 candidates *chosen* for them.
The democrats choose from 5 to 7 candidates *chosen* for them.
Then we all get to vote between the two "candidates" to pick a "winner".
Re:Vote! (Score:5, Insightful)
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I though you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
"What?"
"I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"
"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."
Ford shrugged again.
"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them," he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."
Re:mod parent up (Score:4, Informative)
Really? Back this up. I think you have problems with reading comprehension.
Rampant gerrymandering.
Certainly a problem.
The primary system
What do you find wrong with this?
Lack of "Ranked Voting".
Not sure how this would help..
The electoral college.
So you say the constitution supports only two parties, then turn around and bash it. Sorry, but you can't pick and choose.. The electoral college is there for a very good reason: to help undermine mob rule.
The unrepresentative Senate.
The Senates original purpose was to represent the STATE GOVERNMENTS. For that purpose, it is fine. If you look back in history, you'll see the feds started grabbing way more power than they were supposed to. The fed government was supposed to be weak.
The weak party system.
I don't think any kind of 'party system' is dicated anywhere in law.
Lack of a modern parliamentary system.
Not sure what you mean by this..
Buckley v Valeo (money = free speech).
I'm not sure you understand the purpose behind the ruling in that case..
The removal of only one or two of these structural problem would likely be a catalyst for much greater change.
I would like to think so, but I don't think that those problems alone will fix things.
Re:Vote! (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe I just never understood why, when the exit polls said one thing, and the actual counted results show something else, it MUST be the counted results that were wrong, and not the exit polls that had incomplete data in the first place.
That said, I'm convinced there were shennanigans from both sides in 2000 and 2004 -- but taking exit polls as fact is fundamentally flawed.
Re:Vote! (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless I'm reading it wrong, the parent poster's point is that until 2000, exit polling did jive with the actual result of the election. After 2000, it did not. Regardless of how flawed exit polls are, the dichotomy indicates a problem unless public behavior radically changed (and I don't think it has).
Re:Vote! (Score:5, Informative)
Statistically, no. They were never flawed. The polls match the vote results, as statisticians know what they are doing, and history backs me up. Not to mention that the elections in Chechnya were anulled and redone because the exit polls didn't match the counts -- and the polls were right, and the votes WERE manipulated in the first election as the second election (far better monitored) changed the results enormously.
The idea that exit polls are flawed came from the Republicans in 2000 on those talking head shows, trying to explain away the obvious fact that someone rigged the election results in the contested areas, as those were the only places where statistics magically stopped functioning. The networks threw up their hands at their own exit-poll operations, which were fantastically accurate until they hit Florida in 2000, and decided rather than conclude that statistic work and vote counts were fishy, that Republicans were right and statistics somehow didn't work anymore ipso facto. Bullshit, of course. But the Republicans were in power in both the government and their own network boardrooms, and butting heads with them has been shown not to be a good career move.
So now we don't have exit polls. Hooray! Now there is absolutely NO evidence if someone electronically rigs an election, no backup system as we used to have. Exit poll stats don't match outcome, stats therefore are "flawed", therefore get rid exit polls, end of problem. This is magical thinking, and works well in the US which is a magic-based nation, anyway.
Exit polls were never "flawed", as their performance has shown for over a decade. Someone has fucked us in the collective asses, and then used the outcome to remove the assfucking detectors.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Much more likely that they would be too cowardly and deceitfiul to admit to their hatred and contempt for freedom and their eager support of torture and murder as cowardice, blind ignorant hatred and a lust for murder are the defining characteristics of Republicans. Just look at the world to
Re:Vote! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Fun" Fact: Public offices have minimum age requirements. For example, you can't be President unless you're at least 35 years old. Therefore, at least in terms of national politics, the scenario you describe can never happen.
A little bit OT, but (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know, I'm guessing here, but it sounds like an attempt to label the "other side" fascist, in order to evoke towards them the anti-fascist feelings that survived after the WWII, and also to avoid to be labeled themselves as fascists.
Anyway, it is a lame expression (meme) and I doubt there is an equivalent for it currently in use in any other country/language.
Re:A little bit OT, but (Score:5, Interesting)
I put the word in quotes for a reason in that the label "Islamofascist" is a marketing term developed by Rove and company to help define who the enemy is in this "Global War on Terrorism", better defined by General Abizaid as "The Long War".
OT: Abizaid gets it and understands what it is that we are dealing with with radical fundamentalism and is just the sort of person you want in the military.
Re:A little bit OT, but (Score:5, Insightful)
The saddest part is that, at least down here, people took 30 years even to realize what was happenning, and even if the military regimes came down, people in politics are still the same, only changed the party names.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As an American, I'm starting to feel like those were the good old days--when US officials were sufficiently embarrassed by torture that they tried not to get the blood directly on their hands.
And I thank God that Bush is not as smart as, say, Pinochet [wikipedia.org] or Stroessner [wikipedia.org]....
The Anatomy of Your Enemy (Score:5, Informative)
The Anatomy of Your Enemy
by Anti-Flag on "Mobilize"
10 easy steps to create an enemy and start a war:
Listen closely because we will all see this weapon used in our lives.
It can be used on a society of the most ignorant to the most highly educated.
We need to see these tactics as a weapon against humanity and not as truth.
THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AN ENEMY! THIS IS HOW TO START A WAR!
THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AN ENEMY!
First step: create the enemy. Sometimes this will be done for you.
Second step: be sure the enemy you have chosen is nothing like you.
Find obvious differences like race, language, religion, dietary habits
fashion. Emphasize that their soldiers are not doing a job,
they are heartless murderers who enjoy killing.
Third step: Once these differences are established continue to reinforce them with all disseminated information.
Fourth step: Have the media broadcast only the ruling party's information
this can be done through state run media.
Remember, in times of conflict all for-profit media repeats the ruling party's information, therefore all for-profit media is state-run.
Fifth step: show this enemy in actions that seem strange, militant, or different.
Always portray the enemy as non-human, evil, a killing machine.
THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AN ENEMY. THIS IS HOW TO START A WAR.
THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AN ENEMY.
Sixth step: Eliminate opposition to the ruling party.
Create an "Us versus Them" mentality. Leave no room for opinions in between.
One that does not support all actions of the ruling party should be considered a traitor.
Seventh step: Use nationalistic and/or religious symbols and rhetoric to define all actions.
This can be achieved by slogans such as "freedom loving people versus those who hate freedom."
This can also be achieved by the use of flags.
Eighth step: Align all actions with the dominant deity.
It is very effective to use terms like, "It is god's will" or "god bless our nation."
Ninth step: Design propaganda to show that your soldiers
have feelings, hopes, families, and loved ones.
Make it clear that your soldiers are doing a duty; they do not want or like to kill.
Tenth step: Create and atmosphere of fear, and instability
then offer the ruling party as the only solutions to comfort the public's fears.
Remembering the fear of the unknown is always the strongest fear.
THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AN ENEMY! THIS IS HOW TO START A WAR!
THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AN ENEMY!
We are not countries. We are not nations.(enemy)
we are not religions. We are not gods. We are not weapons. We are not ammunition.(enemy) We are not killers.We will NOT be tools.
Mother fuckers
I will not die
I will not kill
I will not be your slave
I will not fight your battle
I will not die on your battlefield
I will not fight for your wealth
I am not a fighter
I am a human being
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Their stated goal is often times to have a islamic government, like Saudi Arabia, or Iran. I would argue that these are definately fascist governments. Fascists typically are authoritarian (check), highly nationalistic (in an islamic state the nation is suposed to represents the religion - so check), and anti-communist (see the Taliban.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Agreed; +1. And don't forget racism! They'd throw every Jew in Israel into ovens, except they can't afford the infrastructure.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I take it to mean;
Islamofascism - the religious/cultural/political movement to establish fundamentalist Islamic rule, impose Sharia law, put all women into bhurkas and subject them to; no education, stay at home, and stoning for accused adultery, trading your daughter for a couple of goats, and hanging for accused homosexuals - you know, the whole nightmare story you read
Re:A little bit OT, but (Score:5, Funny)
Nutball?
Okay, mod me down now.
-Eric
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We have one: Republican
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Like war? No problem. Jesus came to bring war. (Matthew 10:34)
Hate war? No problem. Jesus warns you not to live by the sword. (Matthew 26:52)
Whatever you want to support or condemn, from candy to stem cell research, there's a Bible passage for you. Pull it out, generously sprinkle on some interpretation, and BAM!--a religious b
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless you're Catholic (like me), in which case your interpretation isn't considered absolute. Doing stuff the way some of these fundamentalists do it is one definition of 'heresy'.
'Course if The Church's interpretation is always absolute, we come full circle to Romanofascism?
On a side note, that "turn the other cheek thing" doesn't mean what people think it means. "by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality {or perhaps being defiant to the alledged authority much like a de
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A little bit OT, but (Score:5, Insightful)
This meant embracing nationalism and mysticism, and advancing ideals of strength and power as means of legitimacy, glorifying war as an end in itself and victory as the determinant of truth and worthiness. An affinity to these ideas can be found in Social Darwinism. These ideas are in direct opposition to the ideals of humanism and rationalism characteristic of the Age of Enlightenment, from which liberalism and, later, Marxism would emerge.
and I'm left thinking..... which side of this "war on terror" does this sound like?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I fixed that for you (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Vote! (Score:4, Insightful)
When is the last time you were directly threatened by a "islamofacist"?
Yup, me neither.
Gues we know the answer to that question, then.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Um... September 11, 2006 [msn.com]. Unless you don't consider that a direct threat to ME, although having been in NYC on THE 9/11, even without a patriotic nod towards "they attacked all of America", I was directly effected by the destruction of the WTCs.
And being that 9/11/2001 actually happened, the threats of 9/11/2006 shouldn't be taken so lightly.
That said, I'm appalled by the very foundations of this bill, and Congress's relative us
Re:Vote! (Score:5, Insightful)
I've lived, studied and worked in London for 13 years now. I was on my way in to work when the bombs went off last year; I walked past police officers leading some rather shocked looking people away from (I assume) a bus. I was here when the IRA were still actively targetting the main land, I was here when some nutter was detonating nail bombs (one in a pub just round the corner from where I worked), I was here when a bus blew up outside the BBC building, etc.
I guess I must be stupid though, as I certainly don't take the threat personally. Nor do I support some of the more egregious measures that are being taken in the name of the so-called war on terror. I refuse to allow myself to be cowed by the vague threat of being involved in an attack. I have far, far more chance of being killed crossing the road than I do of being blown up.
Sure, the threat is real, and should be taken seriously. However, it seems to me that a lot of the things that are being done are knee-jerk overreactions that we'll be lucky not to regret in the future. I worry about the sort of world my daughter is going to end up living in, as much for the direction my country seems to be heading in as for the threat of terrorism.
Re:Vote! (Score:4, Insightful)
Take the threat seriously by all means, but keep it in proportion. I heard the other day that you are more likely to kill yourself than be killed by a terrorist.
Let's not forget other things more dangerous than terrorism, I'll just list a few.
- Heart disease
- Cancer
- Drunk drivers
- Not drunk drivers
- homicide
- AIDs
- Firearms
- ladders
- Drowning
- ...
Fear can lead to the destruction our country. Something terrorist could never accomplish.Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're more at risk of dying of the flu. Get a sense of perspective.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yup, me neither.
Gues we know the answer to that question, then.
Yes, exactly. Statistically speaking, you're more likely to be shot to death by a domestic police officer, than die as the result of a terrorist attack [wired.com]. And many times more likely to die in a car accident or as a result of a fall.
Terrorism IS a real threat, but if you look at the "big picture" it's hardly a significant one for any given individual. I expect most
people need
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Close but not quite, you are missing a "y". Replace "our" by your.
To quote from one of my favourite books (The Man who was Thursday) "The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly. The rich have always objected to being governed at all".
Re:Vote! (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy question to answer. More money and more power.
The problem with American-style "democracy" is that it is all too easy to control the tyranny of the majority. It is easy to move from tyranny of the majority to simply tyranny. The major problem is not the people in power - they simply exploited the flaws in the system to their advantage. The major problem is that the system can be gamed by profiling voters, media control (did you see that extended ad by the president that he did from the Oval Office a few days ago?) and so forth.
The sad fact is that despite this administration's incompetence on everything from Iraq to Katrina, it is still going to be a tight race. If the Democrats happen to take back a piece of Congress, they might become a minor thorn - but these guys will never see the jail terms they so richly deserve. Further, they have set the precedent where this will happen again a few presidents from now - and it will likely be even worse.
So, let's not pretend that voting this November is anything major shall we? Yes, people should vote and we should do what we can to deal with the immediate problem - but it does not solve the bigger issue.
Re:Vote! (Score:5, Informative)
> What are they getting out of the deal by giving away our rights?
To quote Orwell's 1984:
'The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?'
Re:Vote! (Score:4, Insightful)
What, do you think warrants are "quaint"? (Score:5, Insightful)
As for the whole "It has to be renewed every year" nonsense, all it takes is one rider in one bill to remove that Sunset clause. We saw that happen with The Patriot Act.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's funny, I could've sworn the USA PATRIOT Act was approved by the senate 98 to 1, with the 98 being almost 50/50 dem
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To War, Or Not To War (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, I see. So I guess Congress no longer needs to declare war, what with all the bureacratic trivialities of debate and voting; as long as our "enemy" says we're at war, we are. Ah, that should be a real time-saver. I sure hope that's a troll, but I fear you were serious (albeit terribly misguided).
Yes, Congress grants special power to the President in a time of declared war, but only when Congress agrees indeed there is a war. The "war" on terror, the "war" on drugs, and the "war" on child pornography are all marketing campaigns at best, not actual legally-declared wars.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even in your dream world where we are at war with every nutso who waves a rifle and cl
Re:Vote! (Score:5, Insightful)
War on Terror is hardly a war in the definition of the word. War on Drugs is the same way.
Who and what are we at war with right now?
Afghanistan? Didn't we win and pull most of our troops to Iraq?
Iraq? I thought Bush declared "Mission Accomplished"
Terror? Terror comes in all forms, including saying things like "if we pull out of Iraq, we will be attacked again."
Re:Vote! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the modern world has problems that were not anticipated when the constitution was written. However, the behavior of the current administration IS the type of thing the constitution was designed to protect us from, and those protections are getting thrown out. OK, as far as I know, bush is not an evil dictator and probably has good intentions. But how do we know the next guy won't be? Or the one after that? What about behind the scenes abuse of a system challenged only in "secret" courts? WTF? New laws enacted without record of who voted for them? WTF? Now that I think of it, your post must just be an attempt to stir the pot. I guess that makes me a sucker for responding.
Re:Vote! (Score:5, Interesting)
Bzzt! Thanks for playing. [cornell.edu]
Even in wartime, if Congress passes a law saying that the President needs a warrant to conduct a wiretap, or saying that torturing prisoners is not allowed, or saying that every Master Sargeant in the army needs to wear a hat with a flashing blue light on top, the President has to suck it up and deal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I always wonder when one of Bush's apologists trots out this arguement, just how far are you willing to take it?
Your statement, "The President is tasked in times of war to protect the country as he/she sees fit," is a tremendously broad interpretation of the actual wording of the Constitution [usconstitution.net]. Before we get into those facts however, taking you at your word, since obviously to Mr. Bush he is the only person with the ability and vision to press this "war" to a conclusion, would you support his suspending
Re:Vote! (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you. It is your right.
If you are not willing to do what is *right*, then you have already lost any moral high ground. There are times that one needs to stand up for what is good and reject efforts to take from others what we have written into our governing documents. Conflicts can be resolved and yes, sometimes fought much more effectively with creativity, thought and carefully planned action. However, with a culture of doing what we are told and not questioning or thinking, we appear to be willing to cede power to those who appease us with thoughts of fear and shiny things.
I couldn't care LESS if the government is reading my emails, listening to my telephone calls, or keeping me under direct surveillance, aside from being annoyed that they're wasting their time. Yawn.
This is a fundamental problem. What happens when you get caught up in this because one of your co-workers does something unacceptable to whomever might be in power. The thing to realize is that this government as it currently stands, may represent you and your beliefs, but individuals change and governments slowly morph and the constituency changes (and the US is changing). So, if you are willing to give your government so much power, what happens in 50 years when they do not represent you or your beliefs? Think down the road just a little more...
No, I don't believe the sky is falling, EITHER.
While the sky is not falling, the US is only a couple hundred years old. There have been stable governments in history that have persisted for much longer than we have been around because of principals of government. When their principals changed or altered beyond a critical tipping point, those governments failed.
Re:Vote! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Vote! (Score:5, Insightful)
You are a coward. You can't deal with the fact that freedom means that danger is sometimes unavoidable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What should we do now? Just a minute...
We should never have invaded Iraq, removing the keystone preventing the coun
No one's trying to block wiretapping (Score:4, Insightful)
You really aren't paying attention to what the issue is, are you?
You've fallen hook line and sinker for the Neocon talking points.
This isn't about the government's ability to get a wire tap and listen to those conversations. No one is trying to block that.
This is about the fact that the constitution requires the government to get a damn warrant.
During the Clinton administration, laws were passed allowing them to get those warrants after the fact, up to 72 hours after placing them!
Tell me, how is requiring the government to be accountable for it's actions going to give the terrorists a leg up?
How the HELL is requiring the government to follow the constitution, to actually leave a damn paper trail of who they're spying on, going to help terrorist?
Re:Vote! (Score:4, Insightful)
Please tell me how these US actions make them the "good guys"?
Re:Vote! (Score:5, Insightful)
This happened not because we rattled our sabers and conquered the oppressors. It happened because we made a shining example of what democracy can be, and because we convinced the world of our sincerity for a united world in peace. We earned the world's respect, and that made all the difference.
Bush Junior has destroyed all that. Now the world arms itself to defend against us. We are no longer trusted. We no longer exemplify freedom, democracy, and human rights. Hopefully the EU can continue the cause while we figure out how to fix our broken democracy.
There is exactly one person in Washington who represents your district in the House of Representatives. If he's a Democrat, his vote does not count. If he's a Republican, his vote will be whatever Bush wants, so again, his vote does not count. Is this a working democracy?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What part of "among these" do you not understand? And more to
Bedtime for Democracy (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a quick rundown of SB 2453:
More information can be found at Unclaimed Territory [blogspot.com].
Re:Bedtime for Democracy (Score:4, Insightful)
Ave Caesar!
KFG
Please define "no oversight" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Please define "no oversight" (Score:5, Informative)
See Thomas [loc.gov] for more information.
Section 7 contains the information about Congressional Oversight
Re:Please define "no oversight" (Score:5, Insightful)
No worries here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No worries here. (Score:4, Funny)
As opposed to tighteners?
Re:No worries here. (Score:5, Insightful)
No special tactics are required here. By and large, this isn't framed as an issue of civil liberties, this is framed as an issue of national security. The majority of democrats in the House and Senate are too frightened to be called "weak on national security" to come close to opposing this. The republicans have been extremely successful in narrowing election topics to exactly what they want. The only issue that matters in November? War on terror and national security. Other important issues such as health care, the deficit, education, etc. are barely mentioned if mentioned at all. Iraq is often discussed, but the republicans have been very adept at morphing the war in Iraq into some sort of larger world war against terrorism (and thus any criticism of the war in Iraq is a tacit support for terrorism).
The democrats will lose once again in November, because they never learn their lesson. Instead of choosing their own political battles, they willingly march right into the trap set up by the republicans. The campaign slogan of, "Look at me! I'm just as tough as that guy when it comes to terrorism! I'm just like him but I have a "D" next to my name!" isn't going to work.
Text of the Fourth Amendment (Score:5, Informative)
In case you'd forgotten.
Re:A question (Score:4, Insightful)
Ask yourself, if the framers had had telephones, would they have included them in the forth amendment or not? My thinking is that they absolutely would have, as the British would have been tapping them like crazy to get those 'Colonial Terrorists'.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to mention that we are not at war, so the president has no wartime powers.
Filibuster (Score:5, Insightful)
Senator contact list [senate.gov]
It looks like filibusteris the only realistic option [crooksandliars.com] on this one.
Oh, and vote however you prefer to end this destruction of personal and public liberties in November. I'd HIGHLY suggest Democratic in most cases this election.
Ryan Fenton
Can I have my country back? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Can I have my country back? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, the two geysers in the back said no.
The young hipster who listens to NPR said "Leave me alone you facist, I'm trying to protest a highway here".
The under educated rural American could not be reached for reply. Allthough one of her 7 kids did throw a rock at my car.
The middle class family I spoke with said, and I quote, "what are you talking about, this is America you left wing commie pinko terrorist supporting liberal". Well, at least the Father did, between commercials of Fox and Friends. The mother had no idea who her senator was, and the kids were trying to talk to me about government responsibility and all kinds of neat stuff, but who cares what they think, they were only 11 and 13. Not old enough to have purchasing power, or vote, so they don't exist.
Well that's about your voting population. All 15% of em.
Yea, so your answer is... no.
"No definition of 'terrorist.'" (Score:3, Insightful)
While I realize the author's complaint regarding the law, it should be noted that the definition of terrorist has changed at least a dozen times since the term was coined in the 1790's - scholars who study terrorism for a living still don't have a working definition of what it means to be a terrorist that is widely accepted, and most books I've seen on the matter take about a chapter to come up with a loose working definition but ultimately apply a "you know it when you see it" approach.
Defining a term whose meaning moves a great deal - and has strayed so far from its original meaning - is no easy task, and present USG definitions from State and DoD aren't too satisfying either.
In the good old days (Score:5, Insightful)
GWB is trying to take the country in the direction of Caesar-like rule, in that a leader under the pretense of fighting defending the empire/country could act with total impunity and a complete lack of accountability. He's actively fighting the constitution itself, even though he twice swore to defend it. Separation of powers in a standing government isn't just a hallmark of democracy - its a sign of being a civilized society.
Also, its one thing to temporarily alter the separation and balance of powers laid out in the US constitution during a time of war - but in this case war has not been declared, and it also a 'war' with absolutely no end in site. As long as there is one terrorist group "plotting and planning", the undeclared war will continue. This is clearly a grab for permanent power, and he's using the pain of 9/11 to do it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:In the good old days (Score:4, Insightful)
But I see some frightening parallels to the Reichstag Fire Decree [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There was never a formal declaration of war against Iraq. Congress authorized the use of force against Iraq, and thus it has become an extended military engagement, but there was never a formal declaration of war.
The real problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps, you should put a scarlet 'V' (Victim) on your forehead so that the rest of know that we should stay away from you.
No, he is a Citizen and a patriot.
You are a coward and should have a big "C" branded into your forehead.
I defy you to come up with a more canonical example of cowardice than how you just described yourself.
Coward.
warrAnt not E (Score:3, Informative)
Wake up Americans please! (Score:5, Interesting)
I am Dutch, used to like the U.S., used to admire the core values that it stood for. I've spent more than a year in the States (in the late eighties), travelled through 35 states, and generally loved it, and its people. There is (used to be?) some kind of optimism, and absence of cynism with Americans, that you don't find in the Netherlands.
I don't go to the States much anymore, so the only thing I see is the news and sites such as this, but it seems to me that the U.S. has changed terribly for the worse. It seems to be a fear based society by now.
The U.S. used to be some kind of example to a lot of Europeans, but these days, not many think that way anymore. Anyway, I'm just rambling all over the place, but I really do hope that Americans change the course their society is heading, because right now the direction seems scary (Heinlein, "if this goes on?")
good luck, you'll need it
P.S. I hope Bush leaves at the next elections, but the way he's amending the Constitution, I'm not even sure about that :-(
Sigh. Not again (Score:3, Insightful)
1) If you are forming your opinions of the US based off of what you read on Slashdot, please stop. Slashdot is a decent source of Linux tech news but, in case you haven't noticed, rather alarmist and given to poor reporting. If you want a real picture of what's going
Nixon/Bush Legacy (Score:5, Informative)
More accurate headline: "Senate Committee Republicans Vote Bush as Emperor Nixon II"
The FISA law that Bush broke, that his Republican Congress is now scrambling to drop from the laws, was written to outlaw the warrantless wiretapping that Nixon's CIA/NSA abused. Now that Bush is obviously incompetent/malevolent/dangerous, the Republican Party is handing him even more power than Nixon had.
I note that Bush's father [wikipedia.org] was the chair of the Republican Party during Watergate, then the 1st ambassador to China, then head of the CIA while the Church Committee [wikipedia.org] was detailing Nixon's CIA's abuses. After Bush Sr left the CIA, Congress passed the FISA to stop it from spying on Americans without due process. Now Bush Jr has admitted doing exactly that for the last 5 years.
All the more reason ALL communication should be... (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously. The only thing that bugs me is I cannot get a good, wireless, portable encryption platform. My GSM cell phone might as well be an open book. Other than that, my SIP communication, and my GPG e-mail should be moderately difficult for the "powers that be" to crack.
If all communication was encrypted, even if that encryption is breakble, the computational needs of large scale data mining would be impossible. If you need an NSA super computer to crack every e-mail, and it takes 1 hour of processor time per e-mail, you can't very well analyze one billion e-mails a day.
Re:but you shouldn't worry! (Score:4, Interesting)
The Eternal Value of Privacy -By Bruce Schneier [wired.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And I haven't travelled to the Paranoid States of America since 2001. Nor do I have any plans to travel there in the forseeable future.
Just keep off my damn lawn.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To be perfectly honest, I don't think you could really expect Democrats to do much better. The party has cozied up to Bush and the GOP to such an extent in recent years that they have completely lost the will to provide any real challenge to the administration beyond the occasional displeased remark, or half-hearted disagreement with a particular
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd expect backwards inbred bills with either party owning majority over all three branches. I'd be bitching just as much or more with the Dem
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Fine, then that just leaves Timothy McVeigh and his ilk. Oh yes, and those London Tube bombings last year? They were carried out by fully-fledged British nationals. And pretty much all of the IRA bombings throughout the 70s and 80s. And the SOHO nailbomber. And....
You know, it's knee-jerk generalisations that blame everyth
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I did read the PDF (Score:4, Insightful)
Consider the following Facts:
1) The FISA Court has the authority to hear and issue decicions in a completely secret manner, so that if the court chooses, neither the case or its decision will be made public. The FISA court has, on very rare (and mostly recent occasions) occasions chosen to state its decisions publicly, but this is quite unusual.
2) From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligenc
3) FISA already has provisions which allow for the President to temporarily bypass the 11 member court, in cases that he deems of sufficient need, as long as the case is brought before it soon after. The President (via U.S. AG Alberto Gonzales) has acknowledged this provision but essentially said that it is too much trouble to have to go back to the FISA court every time he wants to start a new round of spying programs or make changes to them.
Why then, is it neccessary to make any more changes to FISA?
I did read the SB2453: like most bills it is full of very specific verbage and definitions. From what I could digest of it it has a lot of room for a President to wiggle through (IANAL, but the ACLU which has plenty of them and found it "stunning"). I also read the wired article. SB2453 makes me nervous precisely for the reasons you cite, listed below:
"1) It's for people communicating the terrorists"
Duh. And Who has the legal authority to define what terrorist is? While congress could define such security terms narrowly they usually do not, deferring to President, the DOJ or the Department of State. The DOJ and DOS heads are nominated by, guess who? the President, and rubber stamped by Congress. Judging by how many people in the US are subjeced to this domestic spying program, the current President has shown he thinks a lot of US citizens could be terrorists. That bothers me, but even more is the idea that FISA courts can be ignored completely here.
"2) It's being overseen by a court."
See my above comments.
"3) it's ALSO being overseen by Congress."
As I stated in the beginning, FISA is already under the jurisdiction of Congress but as a whole it has demontrated remarkably little oversight to the public with respect to the current domestic surveillance. Their "solution" to the President's illgal wiretapping of citizens has been to propose this bill, which purports to make it legal. So much for the concept that no one is above the law. I doubt the courts will allow it to stand. That is, if they even get the opportunity to review it; under the proposed bill normal citizens will no longer have the right to do challenge it, only the FISA court will, and it rarely lets us know what's going on.
I think our best hope is for SCOTUS to declare the current program unconstitutional, but because Judge Taylor was so left wing in her outspoken criticism of the program, I think the strength of her decision has been weakened by it; IMO there was plenty unconsitutional about the program without having to spout so much left leaning platitudes.
To sum it up: your argument is a Red Herring.
Republicans are always so good at talking about how Government is intrusive and bad, but are almost always the first in line to vote our civil liberties away, one bill at a time. Then enough meek Democrats follow along for fear of being labled "soft on terrorism." The whole thing disgusts me.
I know who I'll be voting for in November.
Paranoid? (Score:3, Insightful)