New FISA Bill Would Grant Telcoms Immunity; Vote Is Tomorrow 496
An anonymous reader writes "This just in: a new 'compromise' FISA Bill (PDF) was just made public, which, the Electronic Frontier Foundation reports, 'contains blanket immunity for telecoms that helped the NSA break the law and spy on millions of ordinary Americans.' The House vote is tomorrow, June 20. After all the secret rooms and everything ... if they get immunity and the public never finds out what happened, the only other logical next step is to convince everyone I know not to get an iPhone." CNN covers this get-out-of-lawsuit play as well.
Politicians will vote for the law (Score:3, Insightful)
Film at 11
Re:Politicians will vote for the law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Politicians will vote for the law (Score:5, Informative)
- Slashdotters identify policitians who represent a clear danger to civil liberties.
- Slashdotters attempt to spread the word about these problems.
- The vast majority of the voting populace either doesn't hear the message, doesn't understand it, or doesn't care.
Generally, people only care about liberty when it's their own freedom being directly threatened.Re:Politicians will vote for the law (Score:5, Insightful)
Media has replaced religion as the new opiate of the masses.
Re:Politicians will vote for the law (Score:5, Insightful)
1) own guns
2) have abortions
3) ban guns
4) ban abortions
5) have a gay marraige
6) ban a gay marriage
nothing else is going to active a critical mass of loud people to form a permanent bloc in the legislature.
At least not in America. But hey, at least this time the politicos can say "but Sweeden is doing it, too!"
Re:Politicians will vote for the law (Score:5, Insightful)
"Wait, what? What does wiretapping have to do with meatballs and massage? This guy is making my head hurt, that's it! I'm gonna vote for the guy who doesn't make me feel stupid."
Re:Politicians will vote for the law (Score:5, Funny)
I see (Score:3, Funny)
So you don't vote then.
Re:I see (Score:5, Interesting)
Doesn't that actually endorse and extend to private actors the Nixonian view that if the president says it's legal, it's legal, regardless of what the law says and the Constitution says? Wouldn't that set an awful precedent that an administration could get private actors to do whatever they wanted including breaking the law?
Answers: Yes and yes.
Re:Politicians will vote for the law (Score:4, Insightful)
When you see that candidates are willing to spend nearly a billion dollars to win a job that pays less than $400k per year, it shows just how much is at stake in these elections. When that much money is at stake, there is simply too much incentive to cheat. In the last 2 presidential elections, we have seen extensive evidence of cheating.
Re:Politicians will vote for the law (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact is, it's been a long time since the "mainstream" media has been "giving the consumer what they want". Today, the television and radio stations, along with the print media strictly exist to promote an agenda created by the most powerful corporate interests. Nobody cares about Jamie Lynn Spears' new baby (least of all Ms. Spears), but the media has made a decision that this story will occupy peoples' attention and divert them from the fact that they are being turned into 21st century serfs.
Beyond that, the media has done everything they can to convince the citizens that there's nothing they can do to protect their civil liberties anyway. They do this by pushing the lie that all the political parties and politicians are the same and that a politician's stance about these issues is not as important as whether or not they wear patriotic jewelry or have the right skin-color.
But, I believe you can only distract people from their disintegrating situation for so long. There are already signs of a coming backlash, and it's almost funny how when the rage and bitterness of the populace breaks the surface it sends the approved pundits and media mavens running to their fainting couches. We saw it when hundreds of thousands of citizens spontaneously demonstrated against the beginning of the Iraq War. The media said it was just a bunch of "dirty hippies" but anyone who was at one of these demonstrations could easily see that wasn't so. Or when the media assured us all that a particular corporate-sponsored candidate was "certain" to win the Presidential primary and an little-known (black!) progressive politician popped up and with the $20 and $50 donations knocked off the assumed "sure thing". Even today, they try to tell us that this young black man will not "play well" with certain segments of society, particularly "white women" and "working-class voters" (aka the stupid people they count on to watch American Idol), even though every single poll shows that this is not so!. Hell, they tried to convince us that George W. Bush was the "more likable" candidate when just about nobody liked him. I guarantee, these corporate lickspittles won't realize what's really happening until they're hung up by their feet in the public square.
Re:Politicians will vote for the law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The very nice, sympathetic young man mentioned that he's been getting an avalanche of calls like mine since the news of this congressional "compromise" broke.
The bill may well pass tomorrow, but not because the people who represent us didn't hear our opinions.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you really want to make an impression don't email it, they see an email and think that someone just copy and pasted and emailed, not very highly motivated.
Ideally would be to hand write your message and snail mail it. Unluckily they have a workaround in place against this (vote is tomorrow).
Take your hand written letter and FAX it to your representative, ideally from home but if you don't have a modem or fax machine there used to be lots of fax gateways on the net. Hopefully they are still there.
Re:Politicians will vote for the law (Score:5, Interesting)
here's my idea on how it could 'hit home':
wiretap a bunch of random people. scan for 'juicy embarassing things' that they are saying. of course (...) make sure its not a national security thing - just find embarassing personal things that people are saying in private.
THEN PUBLISH TRANSCRIPTS. once a day, from some random person, in the newspaper. keep doing it until people SEE THE LIGHT.
eventually people will see that the talk is mostly personal stuff and not at all 'security issues'. at THAT point, they'll finally understand that this is just a power grab to scare and control the population.
but until enough innocent people get caught in the net (heh heh) - nothing will change and our liberties will continue to erode.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact, someone already beat me to it:
http://cryptome.org/tia-brass.htm [cryptome.org]
For an ANON, you actually hit on part of the issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:For an ANON, you actually hit on part of the is (Score:5, Insightful)
The rare "thinking" people can't often thank the public school system for that. It is either due to some natural fluke, or parents that actually cared for and taught their children.
Re:For an ANON, you actually hit on part of the is (Score:5, Insightful)
It took me a LONG LONG time to shift my understanding to the realization that my being different was an advantage of sorts... even now, it's something of a disadvantage. I can't use Windows because it's a big mess inside of the black box and I know it can't be trusted while other people lead perfectly contented lives with Windows and simply accept that their personal information is available to any 'evil doer' determined enough to get it.
Meanwhile, learning how to think can actually be taught and it isn't taught very often.
Re:Politicians will vote for the law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Politicians will vote for the law (Score:5, Insightful)
It's actually a lot worse than you think it is. They run polling to see which issues are important to a persons constituents. They also factor in who is in a tight campaign and who is safe. And then they decide among themselves who will vote for or against a measure.
The most recent example I can think of this happening was the war appropriations bill. The Democratic Party wanted to pass the bill. But they made sure that Hillery and Obama were set to vote near the end, so that they could vote against the measure.
You have to vote both these parties out if you want to get rid of this stuff. Not just the candidates that voted for this bill.
Re:Politicians will vote for the law (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Republican: Low taxes, Pro-life, Anti-free speech, pro-rich, pro-big business, Pro-gun, Religious, Anti-homosexual
Democrat: High taxes, Pro-choice, Less Anti-free speech, pro-average citizen, Anti-gun, Secular, Pro-Healthcare
To so many people, they really only care about 1 issue deeply, and so they vote based on that issue alone, and with two polar opposites it works well to always have a party that sup
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You may want to look into the Green Party (although it, of course, won't fit your ideology perfectly either).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm with you on that one. The problem is we have guys like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Shaun Hannity defining what a conservative is: and their definition right now is deficit spending, wars all over the world, huge tax breaks for the wealthy and $300 refund checks for the plebians.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For all the "change" he claims to promote, he rarely seems to toe the Dem party line pretty well on the big issues. He's created this straw man of the typical politician, but I don't recall any of them coming out and admitting that they like lobbyists, soft money, backsliding, etc. How am I supposed to believe that
SCOTUS (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Politicians will vote for the law (Score:5, Interesting)
No, your vote is *always* a throwaway *unless* you vote for a third party.
Only with a third party is worthwhile change possible. Voting either of the two major parties is saying that the worst excesses of either are what you want to see more of.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A party could easily come to the party that appeals to the left and the right. I'd be willing to bet that most reasonable Americans would classify themselves as fiscal conservative, social liberal... I want lower taxes but I want to see the poor and needy be taken care of too. If my taxes take care of the poor, maybe the poor would be less inclined to rob me.
Simple voting creates polarized politics. Who do you vote for when you absolutely don't want the Conservatives (Republicans) in power, you'd be willing to settle for the Liberals (somewhat like Democrats), but you'd really like to vote for a small party? If you don't vote for the Liberals, then you risk the chance that the Conservatives will get in and so you can't vote for a smaller party. With the Single Transferrable Vote I could have voted for the party I actually want first, put Liberals second and
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Politicians will vote for the law (Score:5, Interesting)
Third parties face huge barriers to entry due to a collection of factors. The first cut: a lot of intelligent folks simply stay away from politics in the first place due to these and other issues. The second cut: those interested in pursuing all but the most minor political positions really must be career-minded the way things work today. To have a viable career, this pretty much means running with one of the two major parties. (Head of snake, meet tail.) The third cut: unfortunately, many of the folks left after the first two cuts seem to be wholly unelectable. As in, if you read their platforms in detail, you realize that they're fscking nuts. At best, they are well-meaning but lack requisite insight into human nature and/or the real-world ramifications of their lofty ideas. At worst, they're really nuts: spouting off about eliminating UFO influence on our toaster ovens and the like. (My state's voter pre-election voter pamphlets occasionally offer excellent comic-relief while researching candidate backgrounds.)
The more interesting question is why candidates in the "second cut" above don't rally around a third party. Part of the reason is simple: virtually none of the USA voting districts use a ranking-based system of election, such as IRV [wikipedia.org] or Condorcet [wikipedia.org]. This provides a barrier to entry most notably seen in the 2004 US Presidential election as the "Nader effect". Nader was never a viable candidate to win, so many voters felt they were forced to choose between "voting their conscience" and "voting for the lesser evil." The real effects are much deeper, however. An excellent third-party or independent candidate might win an election in such a system by garnering a lot of first and second place votes from voters across the spectrum. The effect could be rather de-polarizing, and would allow a foot in the door for new parties.
Now all of this neglects other serious issues, such as campaign funding and media influence and coverage. Third-parties have an additional barrier in the form of achieving sufficient fund-raising to win a campaign, and achieving media backing. As sad as it sounds, it is absolutely necessary today to get the word out and successfully market a candidate to the people in order to win a contested election. This can require large to massive amounts of money... and the strings that go along with that.
Media outlets get to further warp the funding/marketing issues by providing whatever balance and bias of coverage they want. Whether through carelessness, explicit bias, or even implicit biases, mass-media has come to have an astonishing effect on distorting our democratic processes. Not garnering media support can leave a campaign dead in the water. As a simple example, consider the viability of a candidate for any high-level office with a platform of serious media ownership reform. I have trouble imagining that getting very far.
Re:Politicians will vote for the law (Score:4, Insightful)
The interesting thing that's been happening more often lately is that the politician actually votes counter to the polling that's done by their office as long as the lobbyists are emphatic enough and spend enough money. This of course, depends on how far away their re-election is. The votes of a political party on an issue like this are carefully choreographed, so that the reps who are up for re-election soon are protected by the guys who have several years until their re-election campaign.
There's a fair amount of push-back lately though. In this case, for example, the three Democrats who are supporting this horrible telco amnesty legislation are facing a well-financed campaign, made up of small donations from people like me and my wife, who are running very damaging advertisements in their districts and helping prospective primary challengers mount campaigns when their reelection comes up.
Steny Hoyer for example, the piece of shit that he is, may have to take his meals at home for quite some time after this vote takes place, since most of his constituents and neighbors will see the well-made ad that's going to run in his district.
Here's a fascinating fact-oid: Comcast (one of Mr. Hoyer's top contributors) has actually turned down running this advertisement, claiming that it's libelous or something. They have forgotten that there are more ways to get a message out these days...
NOW how do you feel about the consolidation of media and telecommunications industries? Do you REALLY think net neutrality isn't important?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I would have settled for granting the telco's immunity in return for prohibiting them from further complicity, but oh well. Anyone who didn't think they'd get immunity is worse than naive. Both major parties are in their pocket.
Re:Politicians will vote for the law (Score:5, Insightful)
the politicians either know what they're doing (and full well know its ethically WRONG); or they are kept out of the loop and lied to.
the ONLY way laws like this will get overturned is when it 'hits home' with someone in a position of power. and enough times to really make the news and make people think 'hmmm, this has some implications to NON terrorist people'.
if some person in power were to have THEIR emails and phonecalls tapped and some juicy bits were to leak out, maybe THEN people would take notice that swinging an axe around will sooner or later start harming innocent people.
privacy is like air (or it should be): air is a right to ALL human beings, even the evil ones. I wish privacy was valued as much as the things that physically keep us alive.
but as usual, society is decades behind when it comes to finding ETHICAL uses for technology.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ford pardoned Nixon.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ford pardoned Nixon.
During the last 7 and 1/2 years, the mention of Nixon has really lost its impact.
Only Bush 2 could make Nixon look like a saintly statesman.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Call Barack Obama (Score:5, Informative)
866-675-2008 option 6, if you don't get a person then, press 0. If you get a voicemail, leave a message, then call back and dial 0 during the voicemail prompt to get a human.
Let them know:
-You are a progressive.
-Civil lawsuits are the ONLY remaining route to disclosure for the spying the bush administration perpetrated on americans.
-What the telecommunications companies did was ILLEGAL.
-He should call Hoyer and Pelosi to stop this RIGHT NOW. One phone call from the head of the democratic party should kill this nonsense.
If you have donated in the past, let them know that you will seek to have your donations returned if he does not speak out on this issue. If you haven't, let them know that you will refuse to donate or organize in the future if he refuses to take the lead on this issue.
The first step to making democrats strong on national security is standing up to republicans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Call Barack Obama (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Call Barack Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Call Barack Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Call Barack Obama (Score:4, Informative)
A MAJOR part of his plan to overhaul the way the government works relies on transparency via increased network infrastructure. If companies are allowed to get away with stuff like this, it greatly threatens that plan.
Look at how he has used the internet to promote his message, and tell me again that he will be too busy to keep it free.
I think that Barack, more than anyone else in the senate, has a vested interest in blocking telecom immunity. Unfortunately he is in the minority there, and I only hope the house is able to keep this bill down.
Re:Call Barack Obama (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Don't be so sure (Score:4, Insightful)
So unless a senate vote forces the conference bill into committee (Which I THINK requires 60 votes), this bill can go from the house to the full senate without having to pass by Leahy's desk.
Re:Call Barack Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Call Barack Obama (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Call Barack Obama (Score:5, Informative)
A complete unknown? Which talking points are you reading from? Obama was elected to the US senate in the 2004 elections, and therefore has over 3 years of voting experience in the senate. The US Senate [senate.gov] even tracks the voting records for senators, and you can read Barack Obama's voting record [senate.gov] if you really want to.
Not sure how you can call that a "complete unknown", when its right out there in plain view for the whole world to read.
And more... (Score:4, Informative)
Not to mention 8 years in Illinois State Senate. Significant state, not exactly political kindergarten.
There's an autobiography, "Dreams from My Father", written before he entered political office. There's records of participation with community organizing groups, there's quite possibly a publishing record from when he worked at the Harvard Law Review or University of Chicago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama [wikipedia.org]
Plenty to find out about. It's easy to see how much of this could have fallen under the radar of people who might not follow the minutia of politics closely. But to those he *stays* a complete unknown, it won't be because he's a blank slate, it'll be because people aren't doing their homework.
Re:Call Barack Obama (Score:4, Insightful)
This is about freedom (liberty). Progressives tend to take from people when it is expedient, as does conservatives. Which is why people ought to vote libertarian where governmental taking is just plain frowned upon.
Re:Call Barack Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
This is about freedom (liberty). Progressives tend to take from people when it is expedient, as does conservatives. Which is why people ought to vote libertarian where governmental taking is just plain frowned upon.
Call Barack Obama's office tonight.
Re:Call Barack Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
It is only pointless, until it is not. Then it becomes something bigger than most imagined it could in the beginning.
Besides, if you want to keep voting for the same old same old two parties, and expect things to actually change, then you're insane.
People want real change this year, and neither Obama nor McCain offer it, not really. Both offer more of the same crap we've had since 88. I'm also a tad disillusioned by Barr winning the (L) ticket.
That being said, I can never vote for people willing to take from others for political expediency, or for whatever "greater/common good" they think is important.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In those kinds of elections (first past the post), a third party doesn't have a chance to impact major policy unless they represent >30% of the electorate.
It is just a fact of the political system. A proportional representation system would reward third par
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Originally it was one rep per 30,000 people. Currently the reps represent over 20 times that number. I'd wager that we had the number of reps needed to provide 30K to 1 representation we'd have more parties.
Additionally the Constitution provides that each State sets the rules for setting the Elector for President. The States have decided winner take all, but it doesn't
Why just Progressive? (Score:5, Interesting)
Playing to your own base is one thing. Playing to the enemy by showing you're up in their base, stealing all their votes is quite another -- and that's the sort of show stopper.
Who says you even have to actually be a Republican. Just call and say you're switching parities because of it. Then call your legislator and say the same.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>you will refuse to donate or organize in the future if he refuses to take the lead on this issue.
And if you do, save the nuclear threats for nuclear attacks. This issue shouldn't be a dealbreaker when
Re:Call Barack Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Mentioning that I served 42 months in Iraq/Afghanistan probably got me the "in" to talk to her, but every voice needs to be heard.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
CALL your Congress Critter on this. (Score:4, Informative)
Email does NOT have the same impact as a phone call.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you need a 'form' for your call, here's what I wrote in preparation:
Honorable Congress(person) (X):
I am a constituent (and supporter?) who lives in (your city). I am calling to urge you to vote 'NO' tomorrow on the so-called 'FISA Compromise Bill.'
Any Bill that grants retroactive immunity to the Telecoms is a validation of George W. Bush's attempts to circumvent the law & the 4th Amendment. Please ensure that the law is upheld, and that Americans are given
Re:CALL your Congress Critter on this. (Score:4, Informative)
I made my call. (Score:3, Informative)
The woman who answered the phone says that he is against retroactive immunity.
That's one vote against it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The staffer was polite, but he tried to explain to me that this isn't "blanket immunity" since they have to go to the courts. I politely explained that it didn't make any sense since Bush had already admitted telling them to do it, that pretty much was blanket immunity right there.
He forwarded my contact information on to Representative Hoyer, but since he "negotiated" this deal, I doubt that he's going to back do
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Compare this to Sweden ... (Score:2)
Doesn't it simply rubber stamp the domestic spying, that has been done along with legalising it in the future?
Not really an iPhone problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Boycotting Apple (et al), would make Apple and other like-companies pay attention and probably be a little less likely to follow their trend. Once large companies start showing a decline in revenue, and thus cant afford to buy the next congressman, the congressman pays attention, etc, etc... etc.
Granted it would take a lot of boycotting, and some girlcotting too, but... the idea still works...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The message this would send (Score:5, Insightful)
In my ideal world, the people who make and enforce the rules would be held to a higher standard than the proles who merely have to follow the rules. It's bad enough when the infraction is minor like a cop doing 20 over the speed limit but when we're talking about the crimes committed in this case, it's the sort of thing that erodes faith in our very society.
I know there are people who say that there shouldn't be trials after Obama is elected, that it would be divisive and bad for the nation. Those people can kindly go fuck themselves. That same logic was used to praise Ford for not investigating Nixon. That same logic was used to praise Clinton for not seriously investigating the scandals of the Reagan and Bush administrations. All this did was let the same shit-weasels get back into positions of power the next time a Republican slithered into office. No. As a nation, we need hearings, we need trials. Bush and his henchmen need to answer for their crimes. A standard needs to be set in stone: we are a nation of laws, not men, and no man is above the law. Even Presidents will be forced to account for their actions and pay for their sins.
This will be part of our process for reengaging with the world. We've burned a shitload of bridges over the past eight years. When everyone can see an American President sitting in jail for his crimes, they'll know that justice has returned.
Re:The message this would send (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The message this would send (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The message this would send (Score:5, Informative)
Amongst all this...the question remains... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Amongst all this...the question remains... (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone NEEDS his calls tapped, law enforcement can get a warrant. That's how it's supposed to work here.
Stop fearing the terrorists; they want you to be afraid, but they're toothless. Bush's senseless war in Iraq has killed more Amerricans than all the terrorists this century. Meanwile ten times as many people die every year on American highways. IMO anybody who drives an SUV needs to be on a watch list and have his phone tapped; (s)he's far more of a danger to me than any Muslim terrorist.
And some of that "homeland security" money needs to go to guard rails!
Re:Amongst all this...the question remains... (Score:5, Insightful)
So if there's a dire emergency, they can tap immediately then get a warrant later. The rule of law still applies to these emergency wiretaps. That's a good thing.
The only reason to grant immunity retroactively then forbid investigation is that some illegal wiretapping went on and someone doesn't want you to find out what it was.
Re:Amongst all this...the question remains... (Score:5, Insightful)
By circumventing FISA the Bush administration was turning the clock back to a time when our government was abusively spying on people for no good reason. Since abuse was happening before FISA was created chances are its occurring now that FISA has been gutted. Chances are its even worse this time around since digital communications and computers make it possible to eavesdrop on a much larger scale than you could in 1968. Back then agents actually had to listen to and read everything. Now computers can sift through everything and kick out every email or phone call which has a keyword of interest.
I'm not sure I'm really that concerned about granting immunity to the telecoms. When the NSA and the President told them to do it, it took extraordinary balls to say no. Qwest did and their CEO ended up in prison partially because of his refusal to play ball with them. Qwest lost a big classified government contract because of their refusal to participate, their stock tanked and their CEO was charged for misleading shareholders because he couldn't talk about all this classified blackmail.
I'd be glad to let the telecoms go, as long as the people in the government who told them to do it go to jail, the people at the not, not the people in the middle or at the bottom. Throwing the telecoms in jails is about like throwing the privates in Abu Graib in jail. Its become clear the torture they were doing at Abu Graib and Gitmo was ordered by the highest levels of the Bush administration, especially Cheney and Addington. They should be going to jail, not the flunkies who did what their government ordered them to do in the panic post 9/11.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
can you google? or are you just fucking lazy?
You think the NSA would be a bit smarter (Score:2, Interesting)
Basically, with encryption technology being what it is and open source being what it is, it is possible for those who want to conceal their data from the government. Thus, they will.
So, really, where does this put us?
1) Stupid criminals may get caught.
2) Innocents may get falsely IDed through whatever automated filtering
The bigger lies are more easily believed. (Score:4, Insightful)
A bit sensational (Score:4, Interesting)
So I suppose if the executive branch told your company it was legal to do anything, you'll never be held accountable for your actions.
That's a pretty dangerous precedent. Why doesn't Bush let our oil companies know it's legal to drill in ANWR? He can give them the CYA letter and off they go.
Re:A bit sensational (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy come, easy go...
rj
Call them and tell them to put a stop to this (Score:3, Informative)
Unconstutional: Ex Post Facto (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that judges have somehow taken that "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." sentence to mean that ex post facto laws that make the punishment worse are unconstitutional, but that isn't what the constitution says. Maybe that is one of those hidden things like in amendment 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Unconstutional: Ex Post Facto (Score:5, Insightful)
The SCOTUS can't possibly be wrong in their interpretation because their interpretations are infallible.
Arguing that the constitution says something, but that the SCOTUS got it wrong is essentially an exercise in intellectual masturbation. In practice, the Constitution says whatever the SCOTUS says it says.
You fools, so fixated on Bush... (Score:5, Informative)
just all financial transactions [freedomworks.org]
So you guys are all worrying about Bush wiretapping a few conversations so you can sue AT&T, while the government just grabbed all the financial data.
Way to go Democrats! You guys are the best!
Thanks for the Warning, but not the non-sequitur. (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't speak for Democrats, particularly since I haven't officially abandoned the smoking wreckage of the Republican party by changing my registration yet. However, since I have been worried about Bush and the evolving disaster of a presidency his administration has inflicted on the nation for the last 8 years, perhaps I'm a suitable proxy.
First off -- ho
Democracy Isn't Working (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm led more and more to the conclusion that our system of democracy isn't working anymore. I don't know why, and I'm pretty sure it did work before. Governments usen't be able to get away with even proposing this nonsense. Whatever we had that worked before doesn't seem to be there anymore.
Don't get me wrong now. I still believe in democracy, at least I think I do. Is the kind I believe in the one we actually have, or ever had? I vote. I see others voting. But I still see a disconnect between the actions of government and the will of the people. What has gone wrong? Is it just my vision that's in error here?
Is the fact that this recent shift occurred contemporaneously with the rise of the internet a coincidence? Is it just fallout from 9/11? Or something more? Is it the media? The corporations? The fall of communism? Globalisation? Or is it just the fact that we have indeed reached true democracy, and the currently evolving system of oppression is in fact what the people truly want?
I think there's a problem with our democracy. Something is broken, and I don't know what it is. The end result is that democracy is not working the way it once did. Maybe I'm just a fool raised on too many fairy tales about the way things should work. I'd like to think that, but I do perceive the shifts in our society, laws, and governments to be very real. Either the west is collectively shifting into some other system of government, or the very concept of democracy is itself undergoing some kind of phase change.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Democracy Isn't Working (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Democracy Isn't Working (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect that the turning point with the media came when news outlets started being treated as just another profit center instead of news sources. So now they only tell people what they want to hear, because that's what generates the revenue they need to avoid getting downsized. Who cares about the news? We need to make MONEY!
I was only following orders... (Score:3, Insightful)
If that argument is a credible one in America, then the country is more morally bankrupt then I ever imagined.
Oh AC, you bold revolutionary! (Score:4, Funny)
Verily! That will show The Man who's boss!
You're missing the big problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
Creepy-crawlies (Score:3, Insightful)