US Senate Votes Immunity For Telecoms 623
Ktistec Machine writes to let us know that the telecom companies are one step closer to getting off the hook for their illegal collusion with the US government. Today the US Senate passed, by a filibuster-proof majority of 67 to 31, a revised FISA bill that grants retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies that helped the government illegally tap American network traffic. If passed by both houses and signed by the President, this would effectively put an end to the many lawsuits against these companies (about 40 have been filed). The House version of the bill does not presently contain an immunity provision. President Bush has said he will veto any such bill that reaches his desk without the grant of immunity. We've discussed the progress of the immunity provision repeatedly.
Stunned (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stunned (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stunned (Score:4, Funny)
That'll stop the downmodding, for certain.
Re:Stunned (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Stunned (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html [whitehouse.gov]
I've already asked about this and this was the response from Obama (the "official one" from when I emailed him using the whitehouse mail thing). Copied verbatim, and just noticed the spelling error too. Ironic.
Additioanlly, I would like to address your concerns about the National Security Presidential Directive 51 and the Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20, signed by President Bush in May, 2007.
As you know, these directives establish procedures for continuity of the federal government in the event of a catastrophic emergency. "Continuity of government" is an effort to ensure the federal government can continue to perform essential functions during a time of emergency. Additionally, "catastrophic emergency" is defined as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."
I agree that Congress has an important obligation to monitor how the executive branch exercises its authority. The system of checks and balances enshrined in our Constitution is central to our democracy and protects us from a concentration of power in any one branch of government. I will continue to follow this issue closely with my colleagues on the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs in an effort to ensure accountability and lawfulness, and I look forward to staying in touch during this process.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If all hell breaks lose, a: I don't trust the president
and B: maybe 550 people who are in the legislative body will have a better idea than our retarded president?
instead, we'd get A: president decides everything. aka its a method to have martial law without approval
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't trust anyone except myself. If there is a threat coming my way, I think my state would have a better idea about how to defend itself rather than the feds.
The problem is that there are some weak governors (mine included) that would await federal approval for something they don't need approval for.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To put it in familiar terms, this is an act of closed source government, where the directive in question may have catastrophic vulnerabilities th
Re:Stunned (Score:4, Informative)
The Democrats have a bigger majority in the House which already passed the bill *without* immunity.
Re:Stunned (Score:5, Informative)
It's not over yet. It goes back to the House and into conferencing. The House is adamantly against telecom immunity; last week, the House leadership sent a letter to the Senate condemning it. I believe there's a strong chance that telecom immunity won't be able to make it out of the House, but it might be a good thing to call your Representatives (and Senators, since they're on the conferencing committee too.)
Who's on the conferencing committee? (Score:3, Interesting)
I assume it's not the whole House and Senate - so who will actually be making the decision about whether the House or Senate version gets in the final bill?
Re:Who's on the conferencing committee? (Score:5, Informative)
At this point, the Senate has kicked the bill back to the House. The House will need to vote on this version, or a new version, to kick back to the Senate. If the House passes, without change, the version the Senate passed (not likely), then it goes to GWB for signature/veto/pocket veto.
More likely is the House makes a few changes and kicks the bill back to the Senate.
In short, there is no final bill until the House & Senate compromise and each pass an identical bill; it's likely that neither of the current versions will be the final bill, since each house refused to pass the others' version.
Re:Stunned (Score:5, Insightful)
Simply withholding immunity really just moves the problem around a bit. Now the shareholders of (for example) AT&T bear the cost of decisions they didn't make, approve, or know about. Perhaps they could turn around and file a shareholder suit (on the grounds that AT&T worked against shareholder interests by cooperating with and being held liable for the wiretap program), though I'm told those types of suits aren't very common these days.
While we do hold that "just following orders" isn't a suitable defense for war crimes, I wonder if the balance between the moral/ethical breach of compliance vs. pressure applied by the government is the same in this case. (Do we actually know how much pressure or threat, if any, was used to get the telecoms to cooperate?) I'd see some merit to the argument that liability should be pushed back onto the government itself.
At any rate, I find it surprising that we would expect more backbone out of corporations dealing with the American government than we expect out of them when dealing with, say, the Chinese government. If we tolerate Google "playing by China's rules" when all they stand to lose is their entry into the Chinese market, then why would we expect better of AT&T when they would be running afoul of their home country's government?
What I'd like to see -- and you'll have to forgive me for any imprecision in the details here, as IANAL -- is a John Doe suit filed against the individual(s) within (for example) AT&T who actually made and authorized the decisions to compromise customers' privacy. Naturally those individuals would try to hide behind the shield of corporate liability; I would hope (though I can't remember if it's the case) that taking actions outside of -- and even contrary to -- the corporation's interests would make a case for PCV.
Re:Stunned (Score:5, Insightful)
At a time where corporate law suits against single citizen's is at an all time high, you suggest that we (the people) should have no recorse against illegal activities of corporations? Just becuase 'someone else' asked them to do it.
Absolutely not sir.
Both the government that asked them to commit something illegal and the people that actually commited the illegal act (this is proven they knew it to be illegal, as some companies REFUSED on the grounds of it being illegal).
Its called a conspiracy sir.
All parties are at fault.
(sorry about spelling at work using IE yuck).
Re:Stunned (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead, one of the foundations of our nation is eroded, that is the citizen's protection from search without warrents, and a major crime will go unpunished. This tells the citizens that we are at the mercy of the executive branch, who has time and time again showed that they are above the law.
Re:Stunned (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Corporate leaders are all about the bottom line. I have no beef with this whatsoever, as it tends to create more efficient organizations that end up benefitting the consumer. Of course there are exceptions to that, monopolies, perversions of the system, but let us for the moment assume that the telcos are operating a normal entities in the capitalist system.
2. Corporate leaders are going to take whatever stand they believe will benefit their shareholders. Shareholders are routinely rewarded and\or punished for the decisions of corporate leaders which they have virtually no influence on. This decision is no different.
3. Holding telcos legally responsible for breaking laws, especially in circumstances where not breaking the law was an acceptable response (as evidenced by the fact that some telcos did do just that) will encourage all telcos to respect wiretap laws in the future.
4. Conversely, not holding telcos responsible for breaking laws will encourage more of them to break laws in the future, since it has been proven there is little or no risk, and a goodly amount of incentives for playing ball with the government.
5. The logical conclusion of allowing telcos to get away with breaking the law, as long as the government is the entity asking them to break it, is that eventually all telcos will either participate willingly in illegal wiretapping, or be unable to compete with their less scrupulous competitors, and be driven out of business.
Therefore:
We should corporations responsible for breaking laws, or be prepared to accept an America where illegal wiretapping is widespread, and goes unpunished. Even if you buy the "it's necessary to fight terrorism" bullshit they're feeding you right now, this is the sort of power that's never going to go away once it's institutionalised.
Re:Stunned (Score:5, Insightful)
While we do hold that "just following orders" isn't a suitable defense for war crimes
AG Mukassey does not agree with that. Last night's interview on Lehrer News Hour had him state that no one can be investigated or charged for waterboarding because previous AG Gonzales said it was legal and that absolves anyone who followed that advice of any crime.
I don't agree with that, but that is the stance of the country's highest law enforcement official.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't agree with that, but that is the stance of the country's highest law enforcement official.
Which just means that this AG's DoJ will not start any investigations or bring any charges, because that's the only power the AG has. The AG's opin
The true purpose of the lawsuits (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes and these lawsuits are in fact the point of the spear aimed at the root of the problem.
Punishing the telcos and getting damages isn't the important part. It's something that should be done, but it is really just a means to an end. The ultimate point is to find out through discovery what exactly the government did. The aim is to get evidence out into the open, in the public record, of the government's malfeasance.
Once the spear point has pierced the government's veil of secrecy, then we can drive it deeper into the government itself. With the information revealed in the suits, it may be possible to sue the government, get court rulings about the legality of the administration's practices, and ultimately set up the possibility of future prosecution. If it can create enough of a scandal to cost politicians and bureaucrats their careers, while not optimal, that can still serve as a check to keep the government in line for a while.
This is also, ultimately, what the immunity provisions are about. It's nothing to do with protecting telcos from having to pay damages, that's just the means to an end. It's all about preventing anyone from discovering what the government really did -- they even admit it when talking about why the provision is necessary, though of course they couch it in "national security secrets" terms. Bush and team are trying to cover their own ass, and cowardly Congress is going along with it.
By the way, you raise a good point about Google and China. Personally I don't forgive Google, but at the same time I recognize the realities of working with a government like China's, one such reality being that censoring the people is not illegal. At the same time our government is not China's, our government is supposed to respect human rights, and more importantly it is illegal for them not to just as it is illegal for AT&T. And also because our government is not China's, we the people should be able to discover when our government or corporations break the law and demand redress. Which, coming full circle, is exactly what these lawsuits are about.
Re:The true purpose of the lawsuits (Score:4, Insightful)
No it isn't an abuse. The lawsuits are just, because the telcos broke the law, and they should be punished for that.
I thought your complaint was that this wasn't addressing the true problem of the government breaking the law. I'm explaining how the lawsuits also address that. And just so you know, it is extremely common and not considered an abuse at all for an otherwise just and proper suit to have other strategic purposes, whether that be establishing a precedent, creating situations ripe for appeal and perhaps judicial review, to yes in fact exposing other crimes which leads to other lawsuits.
The problem with suing the government is that until we actually know for certain what they did any lawsuit isn't even going to get off the ground, its doubtful anyone would even have standing to do so until we know more. If you really think the government should be sued, the telco lawsuits are the best first step in doing so.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The grant of immunity is a corollary problem; the root problem is that the government would engage in a warrantless wiretap program to begin with, and until that is addressed we will continue to be short-changed on our rights as citizens.
AFAIK, power is supposed to be divided in the USA. There are supposed to be many players and they are supposed to check each other. This should extend beyond the government. It's supposed to include the people (and the corporations) questioning government orders and refusing to comply with illegal orders. The problem isn't that some branch of the US government is corrupt - the US system is designed to cope with that sort of situation, it's that 90% of the power holders in the USA are playing along and lett
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, by giving them immunity, you'll never know, will you?
In reality, the pressure was probably of the following form: If you cooperate with us , we'll give you lots of money; if you don't, you won't get another Government contract for the next 4-8 years (you do know that
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now the shareholders of (for example) AT&T bear the cost of decisions they didn't make, approve, or know about.
...is a John Doe suit filed against the individual(s) within (for example) AT&T who actually made and authorized the decisions to compromise customers' privacy.
I would love to see the individuals who made the decision get punished for what they did! But tell me: do you think a low-level manager actually gave the "OK" to allow the NSA to build a secret room at AT&T? Similarly, do you think the receptionists at Enron participated in hiding its losses? Of course not. These things typically go all the way to the top of the ladder. I know that most of the cases are civil lawsuits, but these companies did violate agreements with its customers, as well as some pr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Simply withholding immunity really just moves the problem around a bit. Now the shareholders of (for example) AT&T bear the cost of decisions they didn't make, approve, or know about.
Responsibility in a corporate situation is kind of a difficult subject, and you certainly have a point; these shareholders are not really at fault, at least not in any tangible way.
Still, if you're going to to say that shareholders shouldn't bear the cost of decisions they didn't make, doesn't it follow that they shouldn't reap the benefits of decisions they didn't make either? That is to say, why should they profit when the company makes good decisions if they don't lose money when the company makes
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If no penalties are ascribed, telcos will be more likely to participate.
If minor penalties are ascribed, it will factor into their risk\benefit calculations. Corporate leaders will ask, "Will I make more money off the pork I get from playing ball than I lose from judgements against me?" - and act accordingly.
If harsh penalties are ascribed, the sa
Last Chance to Stop Amesty (Score:5, Informative)
So sign the petition [firedoglake.com] to pressure the House to stand up for keeping amnesty out of the final bill. It's the last chance you have to keep some privacy rights when on the phone (hi, Dick!).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
protest? chance of stopping this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pug
Re:protest? chance of stopping this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Last year, there was one big-ass march [unitedforpeace.org] in D.C. protesting the war.
What media deigned to even report on it put the attendance at 10% of the true number.
March all you like...it doesn't matter. We lost this country when we lost the independence of the media.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:protest? chance of stopping this? (Score:5, Funny)
That's why I like old school solutions. Marching with pitchforks and torches. Looting and pillaging every Starbucks on the way. Ah, I miss the old country.
Re:protest? chance of stopping this? (Score:5, Insightful)
The tyranny of the majority, despite its popularity, is still a tyranny.
It precisely is about creating the potential for a billion private utopias. Whether an individual ever gets his utopia is up to him... but it's a major misunderstanding of the principles of the US Founding Fathers to believe that majority rule was intended. Much of what is present in the US Constitution is precisely to prevent majority rule.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Democracy is the ability of the minority to keep the majority in check.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The tyranny of the majority, despite its popularity, is still a tyranny.
What's important to understand is that there are two kinds of majority decisions, those that protect minorities and those that suppress minorities. To take an example, consider that we're making laws about the color of clothes. Now say 20% like red, 20% blue, 20% yellow and the other 40% a variety of colors.
1) A law that says "Everyone has the right to choose the color of their clothes" is probably something a majority can get behind and protects the minorities
2) A law that says "Everyone must wear red, bl
The Constitution and resistance to change (Score:3, Insightful)
That's one reason why I personally don't respect parts of the constitution. If there's a majority in the future, then, well, there is a majority. If you do anything else, you will piss a majority of people off. It seems kinda funny because the constitution was designed with the people (read: the majority of people at the time) in mind. But their influence couldn't stay in their own times when it was relevant, it had to spread to times where their wants become increasingly irrelevant. There are new majorities now with new needs and wants, and they can speak for themselves if they want. The constitution should really just stick to making sure they can speak for themselves, and that those in power listen.
To some extent, the system was designed purposely to slow down the process of change, to balance toward conservative decision making (dictionary definition of "conservative"). This is, in general, a very good thing. You don't want to change your government according to the latest fad, you want slow change where you can get an idea of how things work as you go forward. A conservative government structure also tries to prevent thrashing (shifting majorities just changing the same things back and forth as Con
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There's a difference between retarding rate of change and blocking certain changes. Fast-changing governments are inefficient and unstable, but so are governments literally incapable of listening to their people. We're fine for now, because we are running into problems (that need to be overcome) that were predicted by the founding fathers, but it's inevitable that things will change whether our society likes it or not.
Sure and they do, they have, and they will continue to. How many amendments do we have?
As an example, the second amendment protects every citizen's right to bear arms. That was a fair call back in the late 16th century, when power was unstable, and people were more accountable for their votes. It was a necessary protection to ensure that people felt secure in using their due influence on the government. Nowadays, there's very little need for it, now that the country is large and its people largely anonymous parts of a huge crowd. Politicians and zealots alike are no longer capable of threatening the public, and most of the people live in the cities, where there isn't much call for a gun, except for protection against other guns. The right to bear arms is only relevant today because it has continued to be granted for so long, that now any potential criminal can get their hands on one. Any attempts to institute gun control are now not only futile (because pro-gun spokesmen can claim it as a constitutional right), but detrimental as well, despite what it does for the murder rate.
I cannot disagree with this strongly enough, especially the idea that governments are somehow harmless today. The right to life is one of the most fundamental. If I do not have the ability to defend my life, I have no other rights. The police rarely get to the scene of violence in time to prevent anything. Also, many people still live outside of cities where guns are as much tools as weapons (e.g. protecting my sheep fr
Pardon me? (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Who voted for it? (Score:2)
Re:Who voted for it? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Who voted for it? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That is because she is the candidate with experience. This is just part of her "Comprehensive Government Reform" [hillaryclinton.com] agenda. Clearly she abstained from the vote as a way to show how she is going to change government, since voting against the telco immunity simply wasn't on the table.
Re:Who voted for it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't I feel suckered (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Check.
Please.
Thanks.
There are 51 Democrats in the Senate. 17 voted against this amendment (meaning they voted for telecom immunity).
90% of what now didn't vote for what?
Presidential Candidates Votes (Score:5, Informative)
McCain: No
Obama: Yes
Clinton: Did not vote
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/2/votes/15/ [washingtonpost.com]
Re:Presidential Candidates Votes (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Presidential Candidates Votes (Score:4, Informative)
It is illegal for the telcos to tap phone lines, and the only exception is when the government shows them a warrant or has probable cause. Essentially, if the government did not have a legal warrant, or probable cause with which to attain a warrant after the fact, then the telcos tapping was also illegal.
TFA even specifies this, not that I would point fingers at anyone for not reading it.
Re:Presidential Candidates Votes (Score:5, Informative)
precisely what they intended to do.
It was worded to STRIKE the immunity provision. A Yea vote was one where they were to hold the telcos accountable for
civil violations of the law with regards to FISA. A No vote was to give the telcos a get out of jail free card.
McCain voted to give them a free out.
Clinton didn't bother to vote.
Obama voted to keep them accountable for their illicit activities. (Which, unfortunately, would be an accurate appraisal of the telcos' position right now...)
I suspect Obama, even if he wanted to give them a way out, just bought himself quite a bit of street cred with
a LOT of people if there's something of a big deal made about this.
Re:Presidential Candidates Votes (Score:5, Insightful)
Hillary has been going on and on about the number of times Obama did not vote when he was in the Illinois Senate. Hopefully he'll use this as ammunition.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Taxation without representation (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm serious. I know all of you are paying taxes, and shit like this sure as hell means the common guys isn't represented. Time for a few tea parties, methinks.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Glimmer of hope (Score:5, Insightful)
But, my pockets aren't as deep as brother bells... So, I'm not betting on it
According to the article (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes it would do that. On the flip side, it would encourage them to obey the law. Personally I think that cooperating with the government when the government is breaking the law is something that should, in general, be discouraged*
*Note: For cultures who miss the point, this is called "understatment"
info request (Score:5, Insightful)
What's next? Retro-actively making something illegal and then putting you in jail for it?
Re:info request (Score:4, Informative)
What's next? Retro-actively making something illegal and then putting you in jail for it?
Again, the Constitution expressely forbids this.. for now.
More and more I think I may vote for Ron Paul, even if he's inconsistent.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Can someone explain to me if this is a weird special case, or if its normal??
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I expect to see that within the next 5-10 years, max.
The US really has started slipping into a hole, and won't be digging out of it any time soon.
Cheers
Re:info request (Score:4, Informative)
But there isn't a restrictions against reducing or eliminating liability for criminal activity after the fact. For instance, if a criminal defendant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death, and the Congress subsequently outlaws capital punishment, the death sentence is reduced in accordance with the new law. If they change their mind and reinstate the death penalty, the hypothetical criminal defendant is not eligible for an increase in his sentence. In particular, it is well established that Congress can pass laws in gray areas to clearly specify that something isn't criminal, even after convictions based on the old law, or to eliminate even very broad classes of liability after the commission of the offending action.
In this case, there is a claim of criminal activity that the Justice Department refuses to prosecute because it does not believe it was illegal. The plaintiffs have chosen to pursue civil cases on a theory of civil liability for those actions, based on Federal law. Congress may choose clarify (or eliminate, depending on your point of view) the law to state that the given behavior was not a crime. In this case, it clearly does not run afoul of Congressional power to do so. If that happens, there is no longer even a colorable argument that the plaintiffs have been been harmed, so the cases will be dismissed.
Is there Immunity for Congressmen??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there anything to prevent lawsuits against the government officials who authorized illegal wiretapping in the first place? It doesn't even make sense to hold the telecoms responsible for following orders from Uncle Sam. What does make sense is to hold Uncle Sam accountable for his actions to order the illegal taps (instead of following judicial procedure and getting authority/permission).
Bush even talked about this in the State of the Union last month. He said, "We have to extend the Bill that let's us track terrorists on February 1." As far as I know, that day came and went. But let's get a list of Congressmen who voted for the original illegal wiretapping bill that caused this whole mess. Target those "ENEMIES OF FREEDOM", and make sure people know who they are to prevent them from keeping their seats in Congress during the next election.
(you know, I never understood why Congress doesn't have terms limits. Poor Ted Kennedy has been there so long that he slept through most of the last State of the Union address).
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9 (Score:5, Informative)
It doesn't get much clearer than that!
(For those of you who do not know legalese, "ex post facto" means "retroactive".
Re:U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9 (Score:4, Interesting)
Right. Meaning that the this little retroactive immunity provision is a stupid political statement. The people with open suits now can simply appeal the dismissals (if they even occur at all) on these grounds and the cases will again proceed. Whether or not the cases are eventually ruled for or against the telecoms is another matter. My understanding of things is that the telecoms are claiming that they only actually spied on communications with at least one foreign endpoint even though the equipment necessarily has the ability to spy on any communications.
Remember that this is the Foreign Intelligence/Surveillance Act. If they did use it to spy on purely domestic communications without a warrant then they are probably guilty because they stepped outside the bounds of the law. Most of the cases though seem to be brought by people who were indeed having an international conversation so I think it may be difficult to win these cases against the telecoms.
Re: U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9 (Score:5, Insightful)
Incorrect (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
However if I'm not mistaken, this bill wouldn't actually make it retroactively legal for the telcos to conduct warrantless wiretaps whenever the government asks, it would only prevent any civil lawsuits from being brought against them for violating the relevant laws.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Additionally, civil matters are generally not prot
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What I'd like to see (Score:4, Interesting)
Punish them 2x that amount for seeking immunity and generally trying to excuse it. Don't just fine the company (but by all means, do that too). Seize the personal assets of every executive who supported this and put them up for auction; disperse the proceeds to a variety of charities.
Impeach and imprison for life, on the basis of treason, every politician who supported what they knew to be an unconstitutional law. Isn't it funny how someone who assists our enemies is prosecuted for treason, but the far worse threat of elected officials who knowingly erode civil liberties is generally not even recognized to be a crime? Remember that politicians are generally also lawyers; they know very well what the 4th Amendment says.
I'd like to see all of the above happen in a court of law. Yes, I can keep dreaming. None of this will ever happen. I know that. But I'd like my country back, please.
Maybe when we're all marching the goose step we will have some insight and will collectively decide "hmm, maybe a free country IS worth a miniscule risk of dying in a terrorist attack." The politicians of course are happy to increase their power for any reason or no reason at all, but it is DISGUSTING how the public is so cowardly that they always allow this to happen whenever a little more safety is promised to them. This is such a disgrace to anyone familiar with how and why the USA became a nation.
This is not the will of the people (Score:5, Informative)
Amendment IV of our Constitution:
Here's Senator Dodd's thoughts about telecom immunity
Ex Post Facto = Not allowed (Score:3, Insightful)
There aren't any clauses in there that could be interpreted as "unless it legalizes an act", so ANY law that changes the legal ramifications of an act that occurred before that law was passed is unconstitutional.
Of course, the Constitution is an optional, irrelevant document, so none of it really matters. Just look at (Amendments 1,2,9):
Limitations (Score:3)
Senators should serve no more than three terms (18 years) and congresspersons should serve no more than six terms (12 years). If a person wants to remain in congrees, he or she should run for the other half of congress. A person doing that would have served 30 years in congress, perhaps after serving graduating from law school at 25 or 26 years of age and working in a private practice or local government for six years, until 32. 30 years of congressional service puts the person at 62, and they can happily retire (or run for president or serve as a cabinet member or such).
Game over (Score:3, Interesting)
The rule of law has now been abandoned completely.
The US government no longer even pretends to obey the law.
Your government just dropped its drawers and shat on your constitution.
Retroactive immunity for violations of the constitution.
I'd call that high treason.
Only 26 Senators voted against this (Score:4, Insightful)
Senator Clinton was
Well, guess that answers who's tech-friendly.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I hope I speak for most Ron Paul supporters (Score:5, Insightful)
It amazes me all of his detractors that call him an extremist who is blindly supporting some outdated, irrelevant document -- people who then complain about this stuff being passed. Don't you realize that this is the kind of thing Ron Paul would stop?
I tried (Score:3, Interesting)
Worst part is I used to work for the guy.
The purpose of the lawsuits (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Which telecoms get immunity?
2. What are the telecoms accused of doing EXACTLY? What actual actions did they take?
3. Who wants to sue the telecoms? What are their motives?
4. What is the purpose of the lawsuits? Money, or something else? Remember these are civil lawsuits (you knew that, right?), so no one is going to jail.
The real purpose of bringing civil lawsuits against the telecoms is to get them to fully reveal what information the government asked them for, and to reveal what was given. Revealing this information publicly would be a great boon to enemies of the US and will help them adjust their operations to elude the authorities.
It's too bad so many well-meaning libertarians are ignorant of the real dangers in the world, and the dangers brought by technology, and are so quickly willing to be stooges. And not the funny kind.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Clinton abstained (Score:4, Informative)
Re:just great (Score:5, Informative)
As linked in another post. Obama voted to strike the immunity clause from the bill.
NO Republicans voted against. Lindsey Graham, one of my state's (SC) senators, was the only Republican not to vote at all. I'm hoping that this was because he was against it but couldn't go against the party so much as to vote against it, but we'll see.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And the beat goes on. (Score:5, Insightful)
You really shouldn't make "police state" claims like that. If you think this is a police state, you obviously have no idea what a true police state is. Displaying such an obscene level of ignorance is probably not in your best interest.
I've seen police states. I've had to pass through checkpoints and answer questions about where I was going, why I was going there and when I plan on being back. The US is not a police state.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You really need to stop trying to be snarky long enough to open your eyes. Here's some reading for you:
Naomi Wolf: Fascist America, in 10 easy steps [guardian.co.uk]
Milton Mayer: An excerpt from "They Thought They Were Free" [uchicago.edu]
I've seen police states. I've had to pass through checkpoints and an
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've seen police states. I've had to pass through checkpoints and answer questions about where I was going, why I was going there and when I plan on being back. The US is not a police state.
Really? Crossed the border lately? Flown lately?
You're kidding, right? I tried to enter the Super Bowl, but some Gestapo Asshole was at the gate, blocking my way, asking to see my papers!
Strict border control does not make a police state. A state is deemed a police state by how it treats its law abiding CITIZENS, not foreign nationals who wish to enter the country. If border control and airport security is how you judge police states, can you show me a country that is NOT a police state? Is Canada a police state too? France? Japan?
Re:And the beat goes on. (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, are you that much of a pedant that you'll keep arguing over minutiae up until the last possible moment? You're not helping anyone but yourself.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Voting is irrelevant. Rule of Law is not upheld by voting, it is upheld by bringing criminals to justice. When criminals control the dispensing of justice you have a broken system. Our forefathers rightly divided the government to institute checks and balances but what happens when all three refuse to maintain balance? You have the "nuclear option", clearly defined in our Declaration of Indepence; the governed
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
hand write or fax, emails get routinely ignored (Score:3, Informative)