FISA Bill Vote Today, With Telco Immunity 465
Bimo_Dude writes "Today (June 20), Steny Hoyer is bringing to the House floor the latest FISA bill (PDF), which includes retroactive immunity for the telcos. The bill also is very weak on judicial review, allowing the telcos to use a letter from the president as a 'get out of liability free' card. Here are comments from the EFF. Glenn Greenwald, writing in Salon, describes the effect of the immunity clause this way: 'So all the Attorney General has to do is recite those magic words — the President requested this eavesdropping and did it in order to save us from the Terrorists — and the minute he utters those words, the courts are required to dismiss the lawsuits against the telecoms, no matter how illegal their behavior was.'"
Rep. Ben Dover (D/R - AT&T) (Score:2)
"This is good for the bottom line. That's good for AmeriKKKa!"
Press the button labeled "Submit" (Score:5, Interesting)
My Quote Chain:
"Ah, this is obviously some strange use of the word "safe" that I wasn't previously aware of."
--Arthur Dent
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
--Thomas Paine
"In the 1980s capitalism triumphed over communism. In the 1990s it triumphed over democracy."
--David Korten
You feel a whole lot more like you do now than you did when you used to.
"Protection of Persons Assisiting the Government" (Score:5, Informative)
Section 802(a) provides:
(4) the assistance alleged to have been provided . . . was --
(A) in connection with intelligence activity involving communications that was
(ii) designed to prevent or detect a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation of a terrorist attack, against the United States" and
(B) the subject of a written request or directive . . . indicating that the activity was
(ii) determined to be lawful.
IT'S NOT ILLEGAL (Score:5, Informative)
"If the PRESIDENT does it!" [google.com]
Re:IT'S NOT ILLEGAL (Score:5, Informative)
It was my hope that the article would be posted in time for people to contact their representatives, but also, the scumbags passed the bill [washingtonpost.com] at just about the same time that this article made the front page of /.. The roll call is not available on Thomas yet though.
Re:IT'S NOT ILLEGAL (Score:5, Interesting)
WaPo is more Psyop garbage. Like reading PRAVDA in 1976.
How do you "compromise" to allow violations of 4th amendment protection?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:IT'S NOT ILLEGAL (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what I've been trying to figure out. What the telcos were doing was illegal when they did it. Granting immunity, on the hopes that they'll know it's illegal and behave better next time is asinine.
They were well aware that they weren't being provided appropriate paperwork the last time otherwise, they'd be itching to have their day in court. Letting them off the hook for what was obviously illegal is hardly teaching them a lesson for the future.
Really, what ought to happen is the people at the top making the decision to comply with the illegal orders should go to prison.
Re:IT'S NOT ILLEGAL (Score:5, Informative)
In the military, we are given a class during basic training on how to respond to superiors who give illegal orders.
Examples are given of what constitutes and illegal order, and what the proper phrasing of the response should be. Granted, you will probably end up at some kind of punitive action review, if not full court-martial for disobeying or refusing to obey a superior officer, yet, you have your out. However, if enough evidence or witnesses are available to show that the order that was given was in fact illegal, then the superior who gave said order is brought up on charges. At least that's the way it's supposed to work.
Now, if all the telcos that did this activity, were to show that they were authorized or requested by the president to do this illegal activity then wouldn't that potentially be fuel for the fire to have criminal charges brought against the President? ie - add to the charges of impeachment?
Regardless of his reasoning, committing an illegal act is still committing an illegal act, and 9/11 did not change the constitution.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
From reading almost everything out there on this subject - the best item to date is the legal deposition [eff.org] filed by the expert witness on behalf of the EFF (F. Scott Marcus) which is indicative of a substantially large Narus box network at AT&T and other telecoms. (Most probably extant in at least 20 cities throughout America.
This provides the Bush Crime Family with an awesome capacity to spy on everyone for both financial intelligence and political intelligence and election-rigging (along with the exis
Re:IT'S NOT ILLEGAL (Score:5, Informative)
Re:IT'S NOT ILLEGAL (Score:4, Informative)
Re:"Protection of Persons Assisiting the Governmen (Score:5, Insightful)
(ii) determined to be lawful.
a) the Legislative branch instructing the Judicial branch to obey the Executive branch
b) an Executive branch that essentially makes its own law on what's legal and not
c) creating government-sponsored thugs outside the law, free from the restrictions of the government
d) all of the above
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007 and
Good Christ, are you serious? If that isn't clear evidence that something shady was going on during that period, I don't know what is...
Re:"Protection of Persons Assisiting the Governmen (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:"Protection of Persons Assisiting the Governmen (Score:3, Interesting)
It's pretty simple. They have to pass this bill. Otherwise the telcos will roll the administration in court to prevent losing the cases.
It will reveal that a lot of things were done to put a lot of money into the hands of a few people. And the bottom line is that we need to take that money back, since it was obtained dishonestly.
However, it's been part of the game as long as governments/businesses have been around to declare war and game the system. The problem is that they infringed upon rights, they b
Re:Press the button labeled "Submit" (Score:5, Insightful)
Corrupt government officials passing legislation favoring corrupt companies is the antithesis of capitalism.
Re: (Score:2)
Four More Fears! [wikimedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No implication that you are. :-)
Searching on "It's not illegal when the President does it" turned this image up. There's a gestalt realisation for the people of the US in the image.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Given that they're both endorsed by the CFR you can be sure that no matte
Re:Press the button labeled "Submit" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Press the button labeled "Submit" (Score:4, Informative)
-Benito Mussolini
Re:Press the button labeled "Submit" (Score:5, Informative)
Mussolini never said nor wrote that, nor did Giovani Gentile, so I'm not sure where this quote comes from.
Likewise, in Italian Fascism, "corporation" means a vertical trade union, like a syndicate, and is akin to guild socialism. The people at the top of the corporation are the "masters" and the people at the bottom are the "apprentices" with varying levels of competancy in between.
Votes for the Chamber of Deputies are then done by occupation -- so the transportation syndicate is comprised of airline and rail workers, for instance. They then vote for members to represent them in the parliament.
Only people who are experts in their field craft laws and regulations, which are then given to approval. The "dictator" then has ultimate responsibility to carry it out.
Frankly, it sounds a hell of a lot better than our current popularity contest that leads to lawyers from dairy country trying to pass laws regarded IT policy, for instance.
Not that I'm a fascist, I just read everything about them I could get out of my university library 'cause i didn't have tv.
Hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Well regulated markets work the best. Without regulation, you cannot assign cost to environmental damage, or prevent greed from wrecking society. Hierarchies will always get top heavy with power and corruption. If that hierarchy is in a corporation, there's nothing the public can do about it. If they are in a functioning democracy, at least the public can vote corruption out during the next election cycle.
So, a healthy but limited government keeping corporate power in check will yield many of the benefits of capitalism. I think in order to do this we need to introduce the separation of business and state.
Public officials should not be allowed to seek employment after their service with any firm that does business with the government. If you don't like it, don't run for office. You're running because you want to participate as a proud citizen of our democracy, not so you can enjoy power and kickbacks. Right?
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Informative)
That is not capitalism, but corporatism [wikipedia.org].
"Without regulation, you cannot assign cost to environmental damage or prevent greed from wrecking society."
What is this based on? Do you have any supporting evidence that "greed wrecks society", or should we just accept what you say?
"Hierarchies will always get top heavy with power and corruption."
Corruption only becomes a concern to the public when it is backed by force, something which only the government can apply.
"If they are in a functioning democracy, at least the public can vote corruption out during the next election cycle."
And that official will be replaced by another corrupt official. As long as the government is able to manipulate the economy, individuals and businesses will flock to them to get manipulation in their favor (otherwise they risk seeing unfavorable legislation forced against them).
"So, a healthy but limited government keeping corporate power in check will yield many of the benefits of capitalism."
The ends do not justify the means, ever. A few temporary positives are not worth giving up all your rights.
"I think in order to do this we need to introduce the separation of business and state."
I can agree with that, although you seem to think the fault lies with the businesses, whereas for me, because the state is the entity actually applying the force on the public, I see the state as to blame.
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Corruption only becomes a concern to the public when it is backed by force, something which only the government can apply.
[snip]
And that official will be replaced by another corrupt official. As long as the government is able to manipulate the economy, individuals and businesses will flock to them to get manipulation in their favor (otherwise they risk seeing unfavorable legislation forced against them).
The problem is that even if the state cannot manipulate the market, there will still be business interests attempting to manipulate the government to effectively enforce said business's
monopoly. You do correctly identify the end problem though being the state. The state must not be corruptible, or corporations will work tirelessly to corrupt it. It is as simple as that.
And please do note that the state does not have a monopoly on force. Physical force, sure, but sufficiently large corporations have a surprising amount of market force, which can sometimes be just as effective as physical force.
(Consider a cabal of the worlds largest 30 or so corporations, and how they would be able to manipulate completely unregulated markets if no general regulation (such as anti-trust laws) were also present.).
Properly working regulation may keep corporations in check, but it still requires a state that the businesses really cannot corrupt. So the state is to blame for being corruptible, but the corporations are to blame for exploiting that fact. End result though is that the state needs to change.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wanted to add this before I responded: I am thinking in the context of a real democracy, not America. In my opinion, it's a fascist state nearly beyond repair.
That is not capitalism, but corporatism.
Which, again, is the end result of free market capitalism, because people are and always will be greedy and corrupt. Corporations get so large that they hold power to coerce government, so it matters very little that they can't use guns to enforce their will. They use lawyers and politicians instead, who do have access to them.
What is this based on? Do you have any supporting evidence that "greed wrecks society", or should we just accept what you say?
Without a law, expla
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People by definition aren't corrupt. You can assume that by definition but then there is no reason for anyone to take you seriously.
People aren't corrupt? And I guess they aren't jealous, vain, or "bad" in any way. It's just that they don't have the free market to liberate their true good will. I don't think I'm the one who has a credibility problem on this issue...
Let's break this down. A corporation offers an elected official money...
That's an oversimplified example. More often, the corruption is that political favors are done with no money involved until the corrupt official exits office and gets a cushy job with the benefactor of his dishonesty. If there's no big salary at the end of the election, the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Press the button labeled "Submit" (Score:5, Insightful)
You forgot the most important quote that should be on your chain:
"Any government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you've got." - attributed to Thomas Jefferson
To translate for those hard of reason: "Any government big enough to redistribute the fruits of other people's labor to YOU by force, is big enough to take everything it wants from you, also by force. It is also big enough to run your life, and kill you or enslave you on a whim or a trumped up charge. It can also watch you and make a panopticon of your daily life. And you will like it, and clamor for it to change only enough that you won't notice the ubiquity of the abuses. Yes indeed, you will... like it." - Me
Re:Press the button labeled "Submit" (Score:5, Insightful)
"Any government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you've got." - attributed to Thomas Jefferson
Doesn't sound anything like him. Mark Twain perhaps.
Thing is, most of the "smaller government" people want government out of the places they want their private craven, corrupt, superstituous, hateful ideologies to rule instead. They consider it "judicial activism" when the courts say that government should stay out of proscriptive definitions of marriage, for example.
Re:Press the button labeled "Submit" (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not "just to try to get evidence against Bush because you haven't been successful in finding anything else you could actually prove he did illegally," as you say (I hope you weren't trying to put words into my mouth). The telecom companies knowingly broke the law, and the people within those companies who made those decisions should be prosecuted as well as sued by those affected. The administrati
Treason (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as I'm concerned, every single member of Congress who votes in favor of this bill is guilty of treason.
Re:Treason (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is satisfactory evidence that you do not know the definition of the word in United States law. Start with the Constitution [archives.gov]--article III, section 3.
This is a monumentally stupid move, and (IMO, IANAL) illegal, but it is not "treason."
Re: (Score:2)
Then the definition of 'treason' needs to change.
Re:Treason (Score:4, Informative)
What, you--a "technolibertarian," whatever that is--wants the government to do something for you? That's called hypocrisy where I come from, but maybe "technolibertarians" use language differently from normal people.
Treason is defined as it is in the Constitution precisely to prevent the "conviction by whim" that you seem to propose.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The last time I saw an "argument" like yours, I was cleaning a catbox.
Rhetoric to the side, it might interest the more reasonable members of this discussion to note that the crafting of an unconstitutional law is not treason. It's not even a crime. It is, however, the reason for judicial review--and those of us who are able to eschew the excesses of rhetoric your post demonstrates are quite aware of this.
The solution to this issue is simple, though not inexpensive. If this law passes, then a person who
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a question. What if the law is deemed constitutional, based on the interpretation that ex post facto refers specifically to laws designed to retroactively increase punishment?
The big, big, big issue here is that this law is fucking with the foundation of our legal system. It would be similar to people passing a constitutional amendment that makes the President King, or something similar. At that point, the SCOTUS has nothing to argue about anymore, except state a personal opinion that the amendment i
Re:Treason (Score:5, Insightful)
That's fine, but are you going to do something about it or just bitch online? You yanks always make a big deal about your right to keep and bear arms. Well, that right isn't worth much if once in a while you don't start actually putting bullets through the brains of those treasonous authoritarian fucks.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The reason us "Yanks" still have that right is because we're intelligent enough to use it only as our last option. Apparently you are in a hurry to use violence at every opportunity. Maybe it's why your rulers didn't see fit to give you that right.
Re:Treason (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe it's why your rulers didn't see fit to give you that right.
Rights aren't granted by government, they're taken away. Rights exist in the absence of government.
Which is to say that "his rulers" saw fit to strip their citizens of that right.
Re:Treason (Score:5, Insightful)
There's one small detail that you are overlooking.
Companies shouldn't be breaking the law just because the government tells them to!
And if they do, they SHOULD be punished! As should the people in the government that told them to break the law.
Re:Treason (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see a single mention of the rights of the citizens of the USA in there, just a lot of talk about business and government becoming best buddies and scratching each others' backs.
What happened to by the people, for the people?
These days it seems to be more "buy the people".
Re:Treason (Score:5, Insightful)
If your a stock holder in one of these telecoms wouldn't you think they had some obligation to verify that what they were doing was indeed legal (it wasn't) and that they did not face exposure due to it (they should be exposed, and face serious consequences)?
Re:Treason (Score:5, Insightful)
They took an oath to uphold the constitution of the U.S.A. This is a violation of that oath. I would call this treason, yes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Their oath of office is little more than "... to defend and protect the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic..."
Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution states:
"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
Which means that just as the parent stated, each "representative" who voted YEA on this bill is guilty of violating their oath of office, for passing an illegal and UNCONSTITUTIONAL bill, and therefor is guilty of treason.
IIRC that's not how ex post facto works in law (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe SCOTUS determined that while it was unConstitutional to make past actions illegal (so as to prosecute actions which at the time were not against the law), it is okay to pass legislation which makes prior illegal acts retroaxctively legal.
I can't recall the case off the top of my head, but it was a civil rights case; I want to say Loving vs Virginia, overturning the illegality of interracial marriages.
Re:Treason (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Treason (Score:4, Insightful)
I beg to differ. The president most assuredly is guilty of high crimes, and the Congressmen that pass a bill to grant immunity to the president for violating his oath of office have themselves violated the Constitution and therefore their oaths of office by way of primary action and complicity. They will have raised the president above the law, assumed themselves above the law by granting such, and by doing so will have betrayed the American government and the people from which it derives its powers. That, sir, is treason.
It took over 200 years, but the Tories may be about to finally win the war...
Glenn Greenwald is Da Man! (Score:3, Funny)
Well if Glenn Greenwald said it, I agree with him. Glenn is always right and he's very smart and has LOADS of integrity. Yay Glenn!
Signed
Not a sock-puppet.
What right do they have to grant immunity? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's like a rapist asking God for forgiveness. Only the victim has the right to forgive.
Re:What right do they have to grant immunity? (Score:4, Insightful)
You all talk here and you leave out streets and the congressmen.
I bet a month's salary (to be donated to ACLU) that the bill WILL pass.
Because none of you guys protested like your dads and moms did during Vietnam War.
Sitting on your collective asses will not achieve anything.
God save you guys from your president.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
God save us from their president.
Excellent choice of words.
My government repealed its anti-terror law, because, surprise, the communists think it violates citizen rights.
The press is not controlled by corporates and we do have periodical 'outbreaks' of various scams like money-for-parliment-vote, etc., which resulted in expulsion of MPs. In fact various news channels vie with each other for such break-through corruption, , scandals, etc. Each day i open my newspaper i read only bad news first: criticism of policies, the central bank, inf
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They don't have the right. The constitution actually forbids it.
Re:What right do they have to grant immunity? (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, yes... (Score:3, Interesting)
The US (and other) gov. has been endorsing and even encouraging this for years. Look at Echelon, Carnivore, etc., etc.
Stunning ignorance from my Rep (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been writing and calling my Congressman, Elliot Engel, on this issue for months. Yesterday I received an email from his staff stating he was happy to tell me there was no telecom immunity as of the March FISA vote. Upset that this completely neglected to mention how he planned to vote on this bill today, I called his office. The staffer said she'd never heard of FISA or telecom immunity. I called a different office, and they said they didn't know where he stood on the issue but they'd be happy to call me back once he voted. Talk about a joke. This has really been eye-opening to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Btw, I live in Georgia (Score:2)
Game over man, game over! (Score:5, Informative)
I was watching it live on CSPAN, pretty disgusting. Just remember who voted for this when elections come up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Just remember who voted for this when elections come up."
We're talking about Congress here. They have a better chance of dying of old age and/or indicted than of being voted out of office.
Re:Game over man, game over! (Score:4, Informative)
Don't forget that two of the members of the Senate are running for president this November. Maybe one of them will impress / surprise us. Let's watch.
Re:Game over man, game over! (Score:4, Insightful)
"Maybe one of them will impress / surprise us. Let's watch."
Nah, they'll be too busy campaigning to show up to vote.
Re:Game over man, game over! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Game over man, game over! (Score:5, Informative)
"Obama and McCain are members of the Senate, which voted on this issue months ago."
On a completely different bill, S. 2248, which passed the Senate but was defeated in the House. This is H.R. 6304, being hailed and endorsed by House and Senate leaders in both parties as a great compromise.
"For the short-memoried among us, Obama opposes telecom immunity, and McCain supports it."
If the House can change its mind so drastically in four months, why not these men?
Lets fund some primary challengers (Score:5, Insightful)
On both sides of the isle. Both parties have lost their way and are now off in despotic cuckoo-land. Whatever we have become, if they have their way we will certainly be no Republic any longer. The only option is to boot every damn representative who votes for this bill regardless of party. They clearly do not represent a constitution of a nation ruled by laws and not men.
I say we start with Representatives Pelosi, Hoyer, and Bond.
Good Luck with that (Score:3, Interesting)
As a Canadian, I have come to expect the worst from the US Government in most cases, and in most cases it has failed to disappoint. I sincerely hope your representatives listen and this bill is defeated, but I expect it will pass with flying colours. After all the US has "the best government money can buy" :P
Whatever happens down there south of the border, we can expect the Tories to enact similar legislation up here sooner or later. Finlandization is well underway, sadly...
tar and feather the sob's (Score:5, Insightful)
Heck, we should tar and feather them anyway...every presidential candidate should learn what it feels like before they reach that office.
Re:tar and feather the sob's (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Heck, we should tar and feather them anyway...every presidential candidate should learn what it feels like before they reach that office.
Hazing, as such, is generally seen as bad, not legal, and one of those things you are not supposed to do but in this case, I agree.
I think starting their term with 30 days in county jail, and a required 30 days service year in any of the lower ranked civil service jobs available in any district. Yes, that was 6 work weeks. It might help them stay just a little more humble and in tune with the people that they are representing. If you have to eat your PB&J with joey who has three kids and a mortgage, an
Re:tar and feather the sob's (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like anti-American terrorist talk to me, attempting to incite/support violence against a standing congressman.
Please come with us, we have a few questions for you.
What will Obama do ? (Score:5, Insightful)
As the new de facto leader of the Democratic Party, and as a Senator, Barack Obama could stop this with a word. What will he say ? Will he stand up for liberty ? Or betray it before he even gets elected ?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
He made a statement against retroactive legal immunity [senate.gov] for telecommunications companies in an earlier FISA bill.
On the other hand, McCain seems to grow closer to Bush every day.
Info not mentioned by blurb or articles (Score:3, Informative)
H.R. 6304
You Deserve It (Score:5, Insightful)
You gave up your rights to feel safe because you don't want the responsibility.
You feel safe because you abdicated your responsibility to ensure the govt did not run over the people.
Look ! Its American Idol. You can quit reading now.
You are safe.
Final vote in the House (Score:5, Informative)
NAY 129
The full breakdown, showing which way each representative voted, will be available at Roll No. 437 [house.gov] in roughly an hour, when the Clerk of the House posts it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, that's a really *really* good idea, actually. And I'd advise you to tell the people you know about the stunt he/she pulled.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting that Ron Paul didn't bother to vote.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Anyone who votes against this bill is made sure that he never receives campaign funds from telecoms.
Re:Final vote in the House (Score:4, Informative)
To all those who bashed the 'evil' republicans the past 10 years... will you now bash the 'evil' democrats with equal fervor?
Well, I'm looking at the roll call here, and I'm seeing 105 Yea to 128 Nay for the Dems and 188 Yea to 1 (one) Nay for the Repubs.
So, um. No, I don't think "equal fervor" is called for here. For one party, less than half of them supported this bullshit, and for another party, 99.5% of them did.
(no, the one Nay vote is not Ron Paul.)
Anyway, here's the list so you know who to vote against.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll437.xml#NV [house.gov]
Re:Final vote in the House (Score:4, Interesting)
nixon is not dead (Score:5, Insightful)
he's alive and well. in spirit, at least.
didn't FISA come from nixon era wiretapping?
so all the 'progress' we made since the nixon days has been overturned.
so, would that make bush the 'new nixon'?
Should we really expect any less?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Upshot of immunity (Score:5, Interesting)
Now they can be subpoenaed as a material witness against the Executive, and they'll enjoy far less protections against their having to produce evidence. No fifth amendment protections for one, since it couldn't incriminate them.
Not that this will actually happen, but it's a nice fantasy.
New laws (Score:5, Insightful)
I think we need a constitutional amendment. It should read:
"Any bill that comes before the Congress to be passed into law must be able to be summarized accurately and without loss of detail into 50 words or less. Once this is accomplished, the original multi-thousand page document shall be thrown out, and the 50-word summary presented for passage into law."
And perhaps another one:
"Anyone who attempts to add text to a bill that is completely at odds with or irrelevant to the bill's title shall be considered guilty of treason and put to death immediately in as brutal a way as possible."
Good. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm glad to see this finally happen.
Who voted how: (Score:3, Informative)
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll437.xml [house.gov]
Yes, I'm kharma whoring.
An enemy of the state list (Score:3, Informative)
Comfortably provided. It's at http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll437.xml [house.gov]
Check the names under "Yeahs" and you know who is the worst enemy of democracy and freedom in the United States of America.
Blackwater (Score:5, Insightful)
Granted, so far it's "only" about illegal wiretaps against U.S. citizens. But essentially this says "If the PotUS says 'do task A for me', then the company that does task A cannot and will not be held liable, even if it breaks the law."
So far that task has been (and might still be) "spy on U.S. citizens"
What's to stop the next task from being "rough up U.S. citizens who mouth off against the government"? Or "kill U.S. citizens who are a pain in the ass"?
Sure, that's a big slippery slope, but then again, I'm sure if you went back to say ... September 2000 and asked people on the street, they'd probably say that the U.S. government would NEVER allow such a thing. Of course, they'd probably say the same thing about torture (or whatever phrase you'd like to use instead), suspension of habeas corpus and a lot of other things that have happend in less than a decade. Even "small" stuff like purposely revealing the name and occupation of an active CIA agent working abroad.
Official: Obama Supports This! (Score:5, Informative)
Obama Officially Supports This [talkingpointsmemo.com]
He seems to view giving retroactive immunity to corporations for horrendous violations of US law and the constitution as something "disagreeable but potentially acceptable".
I think i'm going to vote for Mccain. I'm left by canadian standards, but my position means jack if the candidate lies to you. Mccain is honest.
I know he doesn't give a flying crap about me and is in bed with corporations. I know what to expect from him.
A law to make breaking the law illegal? (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, I like Obama's stance on a lot of the issues, but this is just retarded.
"Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people."
So Bush's wire taps were illegal, meaning they were/are in violation of existing laws. So we're going to make a NEW law that makes it illegal for Bush to break the existing law?
He already broke the law, why would he care about breaking the law that would prevent him from breaking the law?!!?
Laws are designed to govern people that follow them. People who place themselves beyond the law will not be effected no matter how many laws
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And voting for a Republican often has the nasty side effect of electing Republicans, who are, at last glance, worse than Democrats.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Cancel their service and go where?
To make matters worse, you don't even have to have that company as your provider. Odds are that when you make a call to someone, your call is still going through one of the companies that complied with Dubya.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Too bad they would be spending the money the took from me while doing that.