House of Representatives To Discuss Wiretapping In Closed Session 264
Nimey brings word that for the first time in 25 years, the US House of Representatives will use a closed-door session to discuss proposed wiretapping legislation. The old legislation expired last month when government officials could not agree on retroactive immunity for the telecommunications providers who assisted with the wiretaps. The most recent version of the bill, proposed by House democrats, does not include telecom immunity. Because of that, President Bush has stated his willingness to veto the bill. The Yahoo article notes, "The closed-door debate was scheduled for late Thursday night, after the House chamber could be cleared and swept by security personnel to make sure there are no listening devices."
Grant No Immunity. Get Info to ACLU. (Score:4, Informative)
They are also going to decide to prosecute or not [truthout.org]. This is not nearly good enough and it stinks of cover up. Check out what the Wall Street Journal and ACLU have to say about this [slashdot.org].
I wonder if they consider cell phones a listening device [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To argue that Bush has done anything whatsoever to fend off terrorism is a joke. I couldn't care less about the immigration system, but his blatant failings to secure our southern borders stands in direct conflict with the GOP's assertions that we
Re:Grant No Immunity. Get Info to ACLU. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Explain why. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the government requests that you break the law, and you comply, and then you are given immunity for your crimes, then effectively there is no law. The government can then commit any crime it likes (by proxy) and get away with it.
In a civilized society, nobody is above the law, especially the government. Societies where the government is above the law are properly called dictatorships.
Here's why (criminal prosecution, anyway) (Score:4, Insightful)
If I'm an individual, and I've been contracted to commit a crime by the "government", once I'm granted immunity why wouldn't I tell on everyone? Especially if I'm compelled by a court?
And before you answer, immunity means you can no longer take the 5th as it regards to the crimes you were granted immunity for. This is a standard tactic in mob trials, so the defendants can't plead he 5th. They're granted limited immunity (usually during the trial, or for specific crimes committed) and questioned. Failure to answer results in contempt charges, or perjury if they lie. Immunity doesn't protect you from telling what happened, and in fact makes it easier to find out.
Now, if these people, who have been granted immunity, HAVE NO CONCERN ABOUT PRISON for the crimes they committed, why would they risk 1) committing new crimes (perjury, contempt) or 2) losing their immunity and being retroactively prosecuted (for example, immunity granted on the basis of total cooperation with an investigation).
Of course, in this case it's civil immunity, but the misunderstandings regarding criminal immunity prompted me to post, in order to clarify its value as a tool.
Keep this in mind, a large part of the successful prosecution of criminal enterprises is granting of immunity to key players in order to get information. It works.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Blanket immunity is hardly ever a good idea. Let's say I cooperate with the police and give them incorrect information that leads to them busting into your family's house and killing a couple of family members in the process. Sorry, you can't sue me - I have immunity, even though I did you a grievous wrong.
Similarly, giving the government free reign to listen in on my phone tra
Re:Explain why. (Score:4, Insightful)
Interesting proposition (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Interesting proposition (Score:5, Funny)
"There's nothing ironic about being stuck in a traffic jam when you're late for something. Unless you're a town planner. If you were a town planner and you were on your way to a seminar of town planners at which you were giving a talk on how you solved the problem of traffic congestion in your area, couldn't get to it because you were stuck in a traffic jam, that'd be well ironic."
"Rain on your wedding day is ironic only if marrying a weatherman and he set the date."
"A no-smoking sign on your cigarette break, that's inconsiderate office management. A no-smoking sign in a cigarette factory - irony."
"Ten thousand spoons? How big is your sink, Alanis? What do you need this knife for - to stab the bloke who keeps leaving spoons all over your house?"
[Thanks to wikipedia for the quotes.]
Re:Interesting proposition (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Cheers!
--
Vig
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Interesting proposition (Score:5, Informative)
How ironic that a dictionary would fail to define irony properly.
Seriously? Incongruity between the actual and the normal/expected result?
That is NOT really irony. For something to be ironic there has to significant force behind the expectation, and the result can't merely be incongrouous it has to be more a contradiction.
If I say 'its a beautiful day' and its actually 'partly cloudy and may be even just a touch chilly' that is not ironic. If it were pouring rain and the floods were rising, that would be ironic.
If I pick up a pen I expect it to work not be dried out, but if its dried out that's not irony. If I specifically chose to pick up the pen with the sticker 'gauranteed never to dry up' and carried it around precisely to avoid the hassle of a dried up pen
Dictionaries often fail to accurately capture the complete meaning of a word, because words are inherently difficult to concisely define with other words. That's no surprise -- the entire point of adding a word to a language is often that other words fail to accurately capture its meaning.
Another example is "underwhelm"; which is defined in one dictionary at least as: "To fail to excite, stimulate, or impress." Again, that doesn't really capture it quite right. If one eats a bagel for breakfast and is not excited stimulated or impressed that doesn't mean one was underwhelmed by it. Its a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one.
To be underwhelmed is not merely to fail to be impressed, but to becognizant of the fact that you have failed to have been impressed. If you ate a bagel and it made no impression on you, if someone asked you about your breakfast, you'd absently say 'it was fine' without 2nd thought; you haven't been underwhelmed. But if you'd sat there eating your bagel and came to the realization that it really wasn't particularly good, that its taste and texture really did nothing for you, then you might come to say that you found it underwhelming.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't tell if your serious are sarcastic. I suspect sarcastic...
But in case your serious... how exactly is that ironic?
Ottawa, where Alanis is from, averages 10+ days of rain per month from April to November. And 14+ days of precipitation in December-Mar (but many of them are snow not rain)*. You'd have to be a complete twit to think you can pick a day at random 6-18 months away and not anticipate rai
Re:Interesting proposition (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think at that point, you've really defined 'disappoint' not
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How ironic that I'm being corrected by someone who doesn't realize that sarcasm is itself defined in terms of being ironic.
>> If I say 'its a beautiful day' and its actually 'partly cloudy and may be even just a touch
>> chilly' that is not ironic. If it were pouring rain and the floods were rising, that would be
>> ironic.
> No, that would be sarcasm.
It would, in fact, be both 'sarcasm' and an 'ironic
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let Freedom Reign (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Let Freedom Reign (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree that there is way too much secrecy and that it is used far too often to protect wrongdoing by government officials, eliminating secret government information would be a disaster. Do you really want every hostile government and terrorist to know the locations, travel schedules, and arming codes for all US nuclear weapons? What do you think will happen if the names of undercover agents in foreign countries are publicized? How about the impact on fighting organized crime and terrorism of eliminating the Witness Protection program? If you make use of government health care, do you really want everyone to be able to read your medical records?
Re: Let Freedom Reign (Score:5, Funny)
No, he just wants to be able to read your medical records, and any related to his political opponents. His are off limits, since that's part of his freedom, you know.
mod parent up (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, he just wants to be able to read your medical records, and any related to his political opponents. His are off limits, since that's part of his freedom, you know.
Actually, many politicians release their medical records. I do agree with you though that mine should remain private. That's one of the reasons I'm against the government paying for my health care. Once they are the ones paying for it, they are the ones controlling it.
OK, now can you answer the rest of the questions? Here they are as the GP stated them:
Do you really want every hostile government and terrorist to know the locations, travel schedules, and arming codes for all US nuclear weapons?
What do you think will happen if the names of undercover agents in foreign countries are publicized?
How about the impact on fighting organized crime and terrorism of eliminating the Witness Protection program?
Should all that stuff be public knowledge as well? Don't get me wrong, I'd love to know all the secrets the government has. Unfortunately, the govern
OT (Score:2)
Sorry but that's BS. Unlike private insurance companies UHC does not need to keep (or even see) your record to pay your bill - a reciept exchangable for cash is sufficient, bulk billing is less hassle and cheaper. In many countries that have UHC the records belong either to the patient or the doctor (who is under oath/regulation not allowed to reveal it)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Let Freedom Reign (Score:4, Informative)
If you make use of government health care, do you really want everyone to be able to read your medical records?
As it stands, one of the first things Bush / Cheney did when they took control was to pass the Medical Privacy Act. Perhaps the most ironic aspect of this law is that it opens patients' private medical records for scrutiny by ALL insurance companies.
Seth
Re: (Score:2)
So does that mean that if you start an insurance company in the US you can look at Bush and Cheney's medical records? (Even if what you create is an entirely "paper" company without any employees or customers.)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe that's why YOU hide things you do. But a technology or method used to intercept communications between people planning your death or the ruin of the economy in which you live, or looking to do another London or a Madrid in San Fransisco or Seattle do NOT need to know the nature of - or the policy particulars surrounding - the means by which we'd stop them. Not if we intend to actually stop them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How much of this argument is total hooey is left as an exercise for the reader - the fact remains that wiretapping is widespread in the UK, every well o
Re: (Score:2)
Since you agree with me that these are all examples of government information that should not be made public, why do you think that they are "weak examples"? The post to which I was responding proposed allowing all citizens access to "all governmental information". My point was precisely that we need to distinguish between information such as this that is legitimately secret and information that should be public.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, well, as long as you're only going to make it available to citizens. There shouldn't be any problem at all with foreign hackers, people who want to blow up one of our ambassadors, or anyone who might want to know when President Obama will be crossing a certain intersection at a certain time of day on his way to attending some event. As long as it's only citizens with access to all government information, we should be fine. There aren't any citi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Although it's cliche, unlike all the drummed-up BS that the Bush administration and the media like to feed you, opening up all government information really would benefit terrorists and others who wish us harm. Names and assignments of undercover agents and their contacts, methods for gathering intelligence, crypto we've broken, crypto we haven't, nuclear weapon
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless of course the name is Valerie Plame, and the 'national interest' is defined narrowly as 'Cheney's vindictiveness'.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe make it very difficult for people to be career politicans, thus preventing the creation of a patrician class.
Republicans and Democrats will do NOTHING. (Score:5, Insightful)
I will not be voting for Obama, Hillary, or McCain. We will get the SAME THING with all of the above. Instead I'm voting for none of the above; either the Libertarian Party candidate, the Constitution Party candidate, or I'll write in US Congressman Dr Ron Paul.
If more people would refuse to vote for more of the same, then we might actually get politicians with integrity that follow and uphold the rule of law.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
or I'll write in US Congressman Dr Ron Paul.
Ron Paul the Republican? Yeah, great way to oppose the Republican/Democrat duopoly. What's next on your agenda, fucking for virginity?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You are correct! We would have also accepted:
Bob, tell him what's he won!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If more people would refuse to vote for more of the same, then we might actually get politicians with integrity that follow and uphold the rule of law.
You cannot get politicians, third party or not, with "integrity" as long as there are silly criminal laws on the books. And by silly, I mean laws that may evoke some sense of morality or social norm emotionally, but that really should not be codified in the legal system (the American one, anyway). Gambling, drugs, and prostitution come immediately to mind - threatening people with jail is not a significant deterrent to these vices, so it ends up just making a whole lot of people so-far-uncaught criminals
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Correction:
I will not be voting for Obama, Hillary, or McCain. We will get the SAME THING with all of the above. Instead I'm voting for none of the above; Either throw my vote away on a lost cause because people do not want what these people offer, or
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, because following the Constitution is SUCH a bad idea?!?!? *rolling eyes*
Where did you get the idea that the constitution is so fantastic? The founders didn't intend for it to last. And it hasn't lasted - you do understand what amendments are, right?
Stop holding the constitution up as unassailable perfection and a goal that eclipses all else. I know Americans have this weird quasi-religion when it comes to the founding fathers and the constitution, but please try to snap out of it and judge
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where did you get the idea that the constitution is so fantastic?
Several reasons. Firstly, I agree with many of the ideas in the Constitution. I won't go into details.
Secondly, I agree with the methodology -- that there should be an overarching "meta-law" that covers what sorts of things can and cannot be legislated, and that furthermore it should be significantly more difficult to change this meta-law than to change regular laws, though not impossible (the amendment procedure).
And last but certai
ARGH! Read it first, then comment about relevancy. (Score:2)
The list goes on.
Amendments don't nullify or shorten the lasting power of the Constitution - they are entirely part of the design. Not to mention
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As Franklin said to a passer-by, "A Republic, if you can keep it."
I'm so proud to be an American when... (Score:2, Insightful)
Systems Normal, All Fscked Up!
-AC
*sig removed by NSA content filter*
Result of Hearing Depends on what door is closed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Result of Hearing Depends on what door is close (Score:3, Insightful)
Not sure Bush realizes he's on the losing end here (Score:2, Insightful)
What will en
Re:Not sure Bush realizes he's on the losing end h (Score:2)
You mean that they will have to go through FISA, which they can do a day or two AFTER they start tapping, and which almost never says no? Cry me a river.
Of course, they do have to make one application per tap, so that means they couldn't listen to millions... but I see
Re:But it is a matter of principle (Score:5, Insightful)
They had a choice not to cooperate, Qwest acted in this manner. I can't imagine the legal departments in these companies never mentioned that this possibly an illegal action. As far as undermining the credibility of the U.S. government, it was undermined when Bush Administration authorized this program.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Tapping phones without a warrant is obviously illegal (the except is FISA where you can apply for a warrant after the fact up to 72 hours). These companies are subject to these requests all the time, they know what the requirements are for legal wiretapping, do you honestly think they had no idea that a warrantless wiretapping program would be on shaky ground?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:But it is a matter of principle (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
As everyone knows, "ignorance of the law is no excuse".
So we will have more courts for however long it will take to punish the criminals.
Re:But it is a matter of principle (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But it is a matter of principle (Score:5, Insightful)
The Bush administration have operated illegally. They have violated the law not just in spirit, but in word. They have pushed warrantless searches and wiretaps. This is not legal. They have advocated, and used, torture in the interrogation of prisoners. This is not legal. They have lied, and used said lies as an excuse to wage aggressive war. This is not legal. They have conspired to hide their actions behind a cloak of shadows, lies, and secrecy. They have refused to disclose the the extent of their actions to the duly elected agents of the People of The United States of America while under oath. This is not Legal. International Law applies whether one agrees to it or not. As much of the top Nazi brass discovered. The Bush administration have used the same tactics: Brute Force, Fear, and a blatant disregard for law, human rights, and human dignity. Any who aid or abet such actions bears blame. They could have refused. They did not.
No. No Immunity for Traitors. No Immunity for Cowards. No Immunity for those aid the destruction of the rights and liberties of free men.
If there is to be any hope for Freedom, for Democracy, hope for any kind of legacy to leave for future generations, on these things must we stand firm.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, failed miserably. No matter how badly you disagree with Bush's policies and actions, he doesn't compare to the Nazis.
Re: (Score:2)
No matter how badly you disagree with Bush's policies and actions, he doesn't compare to the Nazis.
What is your metric? Dead people? Deceit? Number of people tortured? You can always compare, using < =, or >. If you don't mind providing numbers, you would be doing us all a favor. Maybe a table: dead people Bush v. Nazis. Tortured Bush v. Nazis. Lies Bush v. Nazis. Heck, you could get creative. Try to be fair, though. I mean, if you break down types of killing, make sure you have a summary row for all dead people. Something like dead from bombs Bush v. Nazis, etc. I just thought of one: maimed Bus
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Hate to disagree, I agree its wrong, but everything Bush did was using loopholes that exist in the laws (US Congress), Constitution, and in the Geneva Convention. I agree with you about the in spirit part, but as long as no one stands up to him and closes the loopholes (Hello geneva convention, congress,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's more important that we find out who abused this power, than it is for us to get money from it. And judging by how so many in this administration are scared shitless about this, I'm going to make a guess that they were abusing this power.
Also, the Telecoms, who ha
Attention: "security personel" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Attention: "security personel" (Score:5, Insightful)
We need to damn these fuckers with their own words. People have been deservedly killed for less; I think we can all agree that voting them out of office is a peaceable compromise.
Re:Attention: "security personel" (Score:5, Insightful)
Something worse than the 4,000 military personnel and the thousands of citizens that've died in Iraq.
Something worse than the civil liberties that've been compromised.
Something worse than the trillions of dollars that've been borrowed against future generations for a baseless war.
Something worse than the loss of funds to pay for education.
Nah, just wait for them to do something _really_ awful, like pay for sex.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. And while I think its unlikely that we'll get a Scooby Do/The Closer confession on video, I'm willing to settle for a macaca moment [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
The Facts (Score:5, Informative)
Surveillance of foreign targets may still be conducted under the auspices of FISA -- you'll just need to get a warrant. Up to three days after the fact. From the special secret FISA court. Which has never said no. Such hardship.
Schwab
Fear (Score:5, Insightful)
It's all good if this gets rejected. (Score:2)
Hillarious (Score:2)
I'm sure its standard procedure in stuff like that, but I can't help but LOL
At least someone... (Score:2)
Re:At least someone... (Score:4, Funny)
Gitmo.
No one will every hear from you again.
Lying Republican Scammers (Score:5, Informative)
Leave it to the Republicans. You have to, because they refused to let Democrats call a secret session last year, when Democrats wanted to review classified FISA evidence [thehill.com] to decide how to revise FISA as Republicans have demanded (but didn't while they owned the majority):
That kind of severe contradiction should disqualify anyone from participation in either "Intelligence" or "Judiciary" decisions.
Re:Lying Republican Scammers (Score:5, Informative)
Not to mention that the last time it happened in 1983 it was concerning the overthrow of the Nicaraguan government. What in the world is going on in our government?!
As a voter, citizen, and taxpayer (Score:5, Insightful)
Those fuckers are supposed to work for us, and I for one have lost patience waiting for them to remember that.
A secret session on this topic, especially this topic, is nothing but a big Fuck You to the American public.
Re:As a voter, citizen, and taxpayer (Score:4, Insightful)
AT&T *doesn't* want to pay you $146,000.00 (Score:4, Interesting)
Multiply that by everyone with a phone or internet connection, and you have a statutory fine which exceeds AT&T market valuation.
WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't answer, the truth of the situation has already become painfully clear. We've got two political parties who offer the candidates that best represent their party values. Those party values include greed, graft, corruption, etc, etc. You can't vote the rascals out of office because the only choices you have to vote on are the ones the parties select for you.
And while we're hyperventilating about our elected representatives, the real dirty work is done by career bureaucrats - you didn't vote for them, you don't know them, they'll be there until they retire and they'll do what they want to regardless of which party is in power.
Here's my bet: the House and the telecom companies will kiss and hold hands and when it's over nothing will be different. Same old stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
the House and the telecom companies will kiss and hold hands and when it's over nothing will be different
True. Very true.
As Bush is so fond of saying, if you nothing to hide, then why worry?
Why doesn't the same apply to people who are elected officials swallowing our money and time to elect them.
There should be a law preventing secret sessions.
If the government can't be open to its people, then the people don't have to open to the government.
As you said, i bet a secret bill will be passed bypassing constitution granting immunity, provided the telcos say "sorry" and pay a $500 fine to court.
If democrats agreed
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9 (Score:5, Insightful)
It really doesn't get much clearer than that. "Ex post facto" means "retroactive". It does not say "maybe", or "if...". It says NO.
Bush can bitch all he wants, but he is demanding that the Democrats pass a measure that would be blatantly unconstitutional... as clearly unconstitutional as something can be! "No (whatever) shall be passed" is perfectly clear English, hardly subject to debate. And in this case, "whatever" is retroactive laws.
If the Democrats even considered doing such, they would be traitors to the Constitution, to the same extent as Bush.
Re:U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9 (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Doing it "retroactively", on the other hand, is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT matter! To pass "retroactive" immunity, a law is passed that says something like, "We declare this activity to be NOT ILLEGAL, and we make this ruling effective as of two years ago." This has an effect similar to a pardon, but it is not the same thing.
Do yo
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I disagree with the general premise that this particular immunity is a bad idea and should not be granted. But it's well within the powers of Congress.
Bugging that would be the ultimate ironic hack.. (Score:2)
On a more serious note, why are they not allowing scrutiny? What's there to hide, isn't that a law everyone needs to know about? Afraid someone might object?
Just curious.
---
Two questions for those who don't have anything to hide: why do you close your curtains in the evening, and how much do you earn?
Re:Bugging that would be the ultimate ironic hack. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
However, I would much rather try to swing popular support to someone like Ron Paul, who espouses personal freedom and constitutional values, than begin a second civil war in this country. I mean, at the end of the day, we all live pretty good lives here in the USA -- the battle being fought is for the futu
Re:Misattribution (Score:4, Informative)
ZOMGBBQ, an editor who edits. Kind of.