House Votes For Telco Immunity; Obama Will Support? 436
We discussed telecom immunity yesterday ahead of the House vote. It passed by 293 votes to 129. Only one Republican voted against the bill; Democrats were evenly split. It now goes to the Senate. Reader Verteiron points out that Glenn Greenwald has up a post titled "Statement of Barack Obama supporting Hoyer FISA bill." It says that Obama will try to get the immunity provision removed, but failing that will vote for the overhauled wiretapping bill anyway. I couldn't find this on Obama's official site. Anyone seen a position from the McCain camp?
Hope and Change (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps that slogan only really means that we can hope all we want for some change, 'cause we're never going to get it.
Don't be so quick to judge! (Score:3, Informative)
Obama is fighting to remove immunity [cbsnews.com].
Basically, he's the only Democrat who ISN'T caving right now. And that is a change...
Re:Don't be so quick to judge! (Score:5, Informative)
Ummm...the only? The article you quoted has Reid saying he'd fight. Conyers fought it. Nadler fought it. Feingold fought it. Now that it's going to the Senate, Leahy and Dodd will likely lead the charge against it. (My not-paying-much-attention understanding is that Dodd's been pretty amazing about this stuff for some time now.)
There are a lot of Democrats putting up a decent fight. Just not enough. (And to be Fair and Balanced about it, there are some Republicans doing the right thing too, including our usually-hated Senator Arlen Specter.)
Pelosi, however, is made of fail.
Re:Don't be so quick to judge! (Score:5, Interesting)
"Pelosi, however, is made of fail."
Pelosi is shrub's little bitch now, because she knew about the White House's plans for illegal detention and torture back in 2002 or 2003 and didn't raise the bullshit flag. Her career is the reason Bush hasn't been impeached and locked in Gitmo.
Bitch can go to Gitmo, too, as far as I'm concerned.
Re:Don't be so quick to judge! (Score:5, Interesting)
Pelosi is one of the reasons I can't respect the Democratic Congress. She's an utter failure and a moron, and there are so many candidates for Speaker that they should have looked at before her. She is basically an affirmative action choice, and a poor one at that.
But that's just my opinion.
Re:Don't be so quick to judge! (Score:5, Interesting)
You are overlooking the largest reason she is speaker - money. She was an enormously successful fundraiser for the Dems, and she was imbibed hardball machine politics like mother's milk from her family in Baltimore.
So many other democrats owed her they HAD to vote for her when she threw her hat in the ring - they owed her literally and figuratively.
Re:Don't be so quick to judge! (Score:4, Insightful)
That really doesn't make me like her any more, but rather, less. That basically means she bought/bribed her way to being speaker.
Re:Don't be so quick to judge! (Score:5)
If you're not going to vote for either main party, could I convince you to either vote Green or Libertarian? In my personal opinion, I believe that voting for a nearly mainstream '3rd' party sends the most effective "middle finger" to the ruling cabal.
Personally, the Green Party platform [greenparty.org] is something I can support, they even support the kind of feminism I can get behind (the equality kind, not the men are pigs kind). Having said that, the more support we can get to the major '3rd' parties (I hate that term if you can't tell by the quotes), the more of a message we can send that the 'bipartisanship' that only seems to come about when screwing the populous is no longer acceptable.
I still plan to vote for Obama, but (Score:3, Insightful)
(Oh, and I am noting who voted which way [house.gov] on this one. In two years I will be picking amongst about 105 primary challengers. Pelosi, Hoyer, I'm looking at you.)
All that said, voting third party is more effective than not voting at all, and whoev
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, I don't usually do this for posts not my own, but who the hell moderated this as flamebait and why? It's a genuinely good point. At some point, if the two big parties are pissing you off, then you can do two things: Vote third party, or don't vote.
Personally, I'd rather someone vote if they're at least somewhat up to date on the issues, as GP appears to be. It's a LOT better than just wasting your vote*. There's nothing flamebaitish about asking someone to at least consider an alternative.
* I onl
Re:Don't be so quick to judge! (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead, a vote for the Libertarian candidate is among the clearest messages one can send to the Dem/Rep parties of where there is a pool of voters they can actually attract if they adjust their approaches (or at least pretend to).
A libertarian voter should be realistic -- the best they can do now or in the near term is sway the views/actions of the mainstream candidates by voting for the Libertarian candidate.
Send a message to the losing party (Dem or Rep) in November by voting Libertarian. A vote for the Libertarian candidate is a vote for libertarian principles, not for whatever idiot the Libertarians picked this time around.
Re:Don't be so quick to judge! (Score:4, Insightful)
Why exactly is Bob Barr an "idiot?" I'm asking because I've looked at his positions, and, while we aren't going to agree on everything, I fail to see anything disingenuous much less idiotic.
Somebody here considers you insightful so please do elaborate on what's wrong with the party's candidate.
Re:Don't be so quick to judge! (Score:4, Insightful)
"IMHO there is only one way we can help Obama be in a position to make good with his promise to remove immunity.
Elect him president."
Revealing your fundamental misunderstanding of how the US government works. As a senator, Obama could put a hold on the bill, do a REAL filibuster (think Strom Thurmond), or use parliamentary tactics. His leadership won't stop him, because an internal fight right now is the last thing the Dems need.
As President, he would be faced with a bill that has ALREADY passed, and....what? He can't retroactively veto it. He can demand Congress change the bill, but Presidential demands are variable in power - is he really willing to burn up that much clout over something that, now that he is in power, will be SOOO attractive to use?
If he cared about that provision, he could stop it now, instead of mouthing platitudes in January 2009.
The fact he's in the Senate, not the House? (Score:3, Informative)
He still has ample opportunity to make it right. A drop in donations to his campaign (with explanations from the droppers as to why) might yet convince him that doing the right thing is worth any political cost that might be involved. Or a jump in donations to this page [actblue.com], set up specifically to reward valor and punish cowardice on this very issue.
It might even redound to his benefit.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well Obama is a change, a democrat who is willing to look at the big picture and not just try to punish the rich. Let be realistic if the Telco get a huge fine, who will pay for it in the long run... Us... Trickle down theory works very well when you take money away from the rich. It works a lot slower if you give money to the rich.
A lot of people on slashdot are so polarized on the issue of the illegal action of invasion of privacy that you are out for blood even if it will not help anything. All it will accomplish is the average joe (the victim of the privacy abuse) paying more for service and he will pay more in the longer run, besides any fine there will be the extra costs of the companies now having to use more Lawyers for every decision that goes on.
I'm personally quite willing to pay a couple bucks a month more for phone service to send a clear message that invasion of privacy is not an acceptable practice. What's the solution that you're proposing here, have no penalty for companies who violate the law because it could raise prices?
Even if they raise prices, it takes them time to make that capital back, and hurts them competitively (as competitors who did not break the law do not pay comparable penalties), so the deterrent value is still maintain
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think the practical aspect of not granting telecoms immunity is that they will think twice about doing it again.
Fact is the rates are regulated by local governments; any increases due to lawsuit payments will have to be negotiated there.
In my opinion, bringing this issue to court is worth it.
McCain is owned by the telecoms (Score:5, Informative)
He's on the Senate committee that is responsible for them. He's going to vote for it, you can be assured.
Re:McCain is owned by the telecoms (Score:5, Informative)
The rest of us
Don't just grumble and complain here, make your voice heard where it really counts.
Re:McCain is owned by the telecoms (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:McCain is owned by the telecoms (Score:5, Informative)
You can always have your shadow senators crash the party and demand the floor.
Re:McCain is owned by the telecoms (Score:5, Informative)
To the gentleman who modded me "troll":
DC has shadow senators which are elected just as US Senators are, but are not recognized as such by the United States.
For your edification [wikipedia.org].
Re:McCain is owned by the telecoms (Score:4, Insightful)
Did they really? Because there was a lot of discussions surrounding how the administration thought they had the authority to do it.
I'm no constitutional authority, but nowhere in the Constitution of the USA does it give that power to the executive branch. And the Constitution is a limit on what government can do. It doesn't seem like it today but that's how it was written.
If they knew, you would think they wouldn't have bothered writing legal opinions and such to do it.
It just as possible any "legal opinions" were written to cover their asses. "See we wrote these to show we believed what we did was legal."
Would you want el Duce, Hilter, or Stalin to have the same power? How about Pol Pot? Idi Amin?
Totally irrelevant. Nothing this administration has done is remotely close to those people and going after the telecoms has no relation to any of it either.
It's very relevant, not even the NAZIs did everything at once. Instead they slowly whittled away. Hitler wasn't even given all the power he had until after the Reistag fire. And going after the telecoms will show they can be made to pay if they do anything illegal.
Would you prefer a government willing to go all the way when those people decide to invade?
What people invading where?
Or how about when your shopping at a mall and terrorist decide to blow it up for 72 virgins.
I'm more concerned about the Christian Talibans [spiritplants.org] And Reconstructionists and Theocratic Dominionists [tylwythteg.com] who want to dictate how I live, if I don't live the way they dictate I'm stoned to death [sullivan-county.com]. Or how they are trying to get rid of science in school and teach Creationism, ID, instead. I still recall having an elementary school teacher in a public school forcibly apply a ruler to children's hands and arms, including my own, because we wouldn't say the pledge of allegiance with "under god". In a public school.
FalconRe: (Score:2)
Re:McCain is owned by the telecoms (Score:5, Informative)
McCain voted for telecom immunity the first time around, so it would indeed be pretty hard to imagine him not voting for it now, especially with him ramping up his pro-administration rhetoric more and more, lately. His campaign has issued multiple statements that McCain wholeheartedly endorses telecom immunity. Here's to hoping Obama actually votes against this, and the Senate does something to block it -- although I doubt it, since the Senate is split evenly (49-49) between Democrats and Republicans, and most of the Democrats don't have the spine to be seen voting against something that's PROTECTING US AGAINST TERRORISTS OMG.
Change we can believe in (Score:2, Insightful)
no change
Re:Change we can believe in (Score:5, Funny)
It is not blanket immunity (Score:5, Informative)
This does not stop law suits. It gives telcos who have written requests from the government, dated after 9/11/2001, that state the president authorized the specific wire tap to not be liable.
1)The telcos still have to go to court and file papers
2)so many people were violated that there will be many many suits
3)they have to have written proof that the president authorized it (not likely given the fact that Bush wanted to not be caught)
4)there is evidence that Bush had been doing this domestic wire tapping before 9/11
5)A judge still decides if the proof provided by the telcos meets the standard
Re:It is not blanket immunity (Score:5, Insightful)
6) Lawsuits lost because of this law may be appealed and this law will hopefully be found unconstitutional (because it is).
Re:It is not blanket immunity (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It only has to go to conference committee if the Senate amends the bill.
The retroactive immunity (yes it is) will not be voted down. Dodd et al. may try to filibuster it, but I doubt they can find 40 senators to keep a filibuster.
I'm pretty sure it'll get 70 votes or so.
Re:It is not blanket immunity (Score:5, Insightful)
Spin in however you like, no matter how you look at this, the Democrats caved. Pathetic.
Of course! (Score:5, Funny)
Going to continue getting shafted or... (Score:5, Insightful)
(1) Obama turned down federal financing the other day.
(2) He is totally reliant on private contributions to carry the campaign to the White House.
(3) It is the internet fund raising that has brought in huge dollars for him.
(4) Stop being adoring fans and start thinking like empowered citizens
(5) Get on Reddit, Digg, twitter, Facebook, etc.: NO FURTHER CONTRIBUTIONS until Obama proves leadership on Telecom Immunity
(6) Learn what it feels like to have real power.
Obama Policy, etc.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet he's just another politician. In fact, I think his campaign has been the most calculatingly PR-driven of the bunch. The man doesn't even have a platform (yes, I've read his website), just a bunch of slogans involving abstract nouns.
Abstract nouns like "network neutrality"?
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/#open-internet [barackobama.com]
Or "review of existing uses of our wireless spectrum"?
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/#modern-communications [barackobama.com]
Or "a credit card rating system," and "Prohibit Interest on Fees"?
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#credit-cards [barackobama.com]
Or "exemption in bankruptcy law for individuals who can prove they filed for bankruptcy because of medical expenses"?
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#bankruptcy [barackobama.com]
How about "new Teacher Service Scholarship"? Or "American Opportunity Tax Credit"?
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/#teachers [barackobama.com]
I think it strains credibility to say he "doesn't even have a platform." Or to claim that you've read his website.
People say Obama's a great orator, too, but I don't even see that.
That's fine.
Honestly, I think they just think "black man = good speaker"
Really? Do you have any evidence to back this up? I mean, yeah, people find certain famous ministers, MLK in particular, inspiring, but I'd be willing to lay down serious money that a decent poll on a significant set of the US population would *not* show a general perception of black males being better public speakers than white males.
I'd be very interested to be pointed to information to the contrary.
I feel reasonably confident that I know what I would be voting for if I voted for McCain.
If my acquaintances who've worked in the senate are any indication, you probably don't. Several of them went in with respect for him, and found that when the cameras are off, he's a very different person. At minimum vindictive and tyranical, and quite possibly unstable.
This is commentary from senate staffers who worked for *Republicans*, not democrats.
Of course, this is a random guy on the internet saying stuff, and there's no way to verify it really, unless you have access to acquaintances in the same circles, or until somebody there risks upsetting their position in that circle by standing up and saying something about it.
For a comparison: When I saw Wesley Clark a few years earlier (when he was running for president), he gave a speech in which he outlined specific policy objectives, and reserved time at the end to answer questions. He understood what he was talking about!
I like Wesley Clark, and everything I've seen leads me to believe think he'd be a good choice in the White House, and I don't doubt he understands some policy domains (particularly the obvious foreign and military ones) far better than Obama does.
Obama has his own domains of policy expertise, however -- community economic development in particular -- and I think he's shown he knows how to pick people with real knowledge in underlying domains (see, for example, his choice of tech advisor vs McCain... and MIT prof vs an industry lawyer).
he need (1) for a Palestinian state, and (2) to engage the Palestinians. Yet recently at AIPAC, he swore he would not talk to HAMAS (exactly contradicting his previous promises of engagement) and that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided"
The AIPAC speech was a disaster, I think necessarily because Obama simultaneously doesn't want to abandon the Jewish constituency (and to some extent, zionist Christians) to McCain,
Re:Going to continue getting shafted or... (Score:4, Insightful)
I do think it is more the American people that are to blame. You wouldn't even vote for a president if he would have a slight blush on his face, because it doesn't look "presidential". Do you know that most people in my country wouldn't know the wife of the president? She could walk right through Amsterdam and only draw a few looks.
That said, I do think that at least Obama is to be believed when he says he wants change. Maybe that's naive, but we'll have to wait and see. Keeping the current status quo is the stupidest thing to do. It only benefits some already rich people and literally disregards all others.
When I see the circus surrounding your elections, do you really expect in depth analysis and questions? That won't hit the "whoo!" crowd. You'll have to be behind the scenes to do that kind of thing. Besides it not hitting the right brain centers, it would also be very tiring. Thinking uses lots of energy. Energy you need for looking spiffy - if you look that, you've already lost.
I could never be president, I sleep too irregular for that :) One day with eyes black from sleep deprivation and I would be mincemeat.
Re:Going to continue getting shafted or... (Score:4, Insightful)
Umm... Israel talked to Hamas. If the people that are at a real threat from the group talk to the group, then perhaps you need to rethink your diplomacy stance.
True BUT (Score:5, Insightful)
BUT it only gives immunity to wiretapping that started after 9/11. The program started before 9/11 - a few weeks after Bush took office, in fact. This was when the Bush people were ignoring terror threats so it was not about terrorists.
Re:True BUT (Score:5, Informative)
Nice try. I know that in Republican ideology everything bad is Clinton's fault. But don't just make stuff up, please.
See "Former Phone Chief Says Spy Agency Sought Surveillance Help Before 9/11 "
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/business/14qwest.html?fta=y [nytimes.com]
From the story:
The phone company Qwest Communications refused a proposal from the National Security Agency that the companyâ(TM)s lawyers considered illegal in February 2001, nearly seven months before the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, the former head of the company contends in newly unsealed court filings.
Re:It is not blanket immunity (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know if that's a swipe against Democrats in general... but at least about half of them stood up and said no.
Re:It is not blanket immunity (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It was pointed out that this bill makes investigating what happened illegal. In order to bring a lawsuit, you need evidence don't you? If it's illegal to obtain evidence with an investigation wouldn't they attempt to throw out any lawsuit brought to them due to illegally obtained evidence?
So if the AG stipulates it's legal, it's legal (Score:5, Interesting)
What kind of checks and balances in a Republic is that? What federal branch of government does the Justice Department belong to? Who is the head of the Justice Department?
This kills all of the lawsuits by quaffing each suit prior to the discovery process. All the AG must do is certify that the request for a wiretap came directly from him and the requirement for warrants - while still legally valid - can be ignored due to the fact that the outcome will never become public.
The consequences of this legislation is exactly the opposite of what you say.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then you continue to fail epically at this conversation, since the entire purpose of this bill is to hand off the immunity choice to the AG. All he has to do is send a letter and the telco is given immunity by Congress. Sure, a court might overrule that provision, but we're discussing the legislation right now and that's what the bill just passed by the House says.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude. They have the paperwork (#3). They admit they have the paperwork and so does the government. Where have you been?
A judge gets to decide if the paperwork is authentic, but as I just said, we know it's authentic and every has already agreed that these letters exist.
It's not immunity, but it might as well be.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Umm... This bill makes the acts post 9/11 possibly non-liable. pre-9/11 acts are still liable. That is not Bush bashing that is fact stating.
Re: (Score:3)
And if anyone has any evidence of pre-9/11 acts, Congress will just pass another law making the actions retroactively legal.
Nixon was right. When the President does it, that means it's not illegal. Of course, he forgot to mention that it's not illegal because Congress will give the President a get-out-of-jail free card.
Re:It is not blanket immunity (Score:5, Funny)
There's no such thing as gratuitous Bush-bashing. Every little bit helps.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why would he look good? He's the reason prices are high in the first place.
As a lover of conspiracy theories, though, I believe the oil companies are intentionally jacking up the price of gasoline to make it extremely uncomfortable (and to reap greater-than-usual profits).
Then, around October, the price of gas will plummet to about $3/gallon, and Bush will look good, and McCain will ride his coattails into office.
It's unfortunate that the price of a gallon of gas may determine the outcome of this election.
Probably (Score:2, Informative)
I'm not supporting McCain, but I did support Ron Paul.
I would say it's likely Obama will vote for the bill whatever comes of it. Even though Obama talked about Civil Liberties, with the renewal of the Patriot Act all he really did was push for being kinder, gentler.... and most of those provisions were stripped out later on and he still voted for it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act#Reauthorizations [wikipedia.org]
Obama also supports banning the burning of flags (which is also the proper way to get rid of a del
Again. (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't think of anything profound to say. I hate to be the bearer of hopelessness, but I think that the US is too far down the road to being a police state. There is no way this will get reversed. I don't see this thing being defeated in the Senate. There are too many powerful lobbies behind it. Sorry.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You (and others) are of the belief that this proof doesn't exist. I assure you it does and it is widely believed it does. Fmr. AG Gonzales testified to this fact and the telcos have used such arguments in their legal cases.
Congress said "yeah, we'll get your back if you can prove Bush asked you to do it" knowing full well that the telcos have such proof. It was a compromise in name only.
Read the bill (Score:5, Informative)
Text of the House bill, see section 802.f:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6304 [govtrack.us]
EFF analysis of the immunity portion of the bill:
http://www.eff.org/files/AnalysisHR6304-v5.pdf [eff.org]
No more $ for Obama; time for a General Strike (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm done with giving Obama money. I want a return to constitutional governance, and supported him because I thought that's what he stood for. Apparently not. This has nothing to do with party politics and everything to do with the betrayal of rule of law by both political parties. They have eviscerated the fourth amendment without so much as a peep from the Supreme Court.
This is getting very ugly. At this point the only hope for citizens to return to constitutional governance nonviolently will be for mass general strikes throughout the United States. Otherwise, everything our founders stood for in the creation of the Bill of Rights will be diluted to nothing before our eyes. I do not wish to live in a totalitarian United States of America.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Ron Paul and his supporters and trying to change the Republican Party. This will be a slow process, probably taking 5-15 years before we have significant leadership positions in that party (such is libery, eternal vigilance). We need people running on all levels:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlqXq8YxQFQ [youtube.com]
Time for Paul & Libertarians to join a coaliti (Score:3, Informative)
Paul and his minions can't do this on their own. You'll need to create a Libertarian / Liberal coalition to win this. IMO: Libertarians and Civil Rights activists have more in common than they have in opposition right now.
http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/11689 [actblue.com]
ActBlue appears to be attempting this type of Libertine/Liberal coalition. I've donated.
Re: (Score:2)
Ron Paul and his supporters and trying to change the Republican Party. This will be a slow process, probably taking 5-15 years before we have significant leadership positions in that party (such is libery, eternal vigilance). We need people running on all levels:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlqXq8YxQFQ [youtube.com]
If Dr. Paul truly wishes to change the Republican party, he needs to lead an exodus from the Republican Party. The only way that party is going to stop being held sway by the people abusing it's unity is to temporarily fracture said unity to shake them out of their positions of power.
This country could use a 3rd or 4th party, the 2 party system has some very big failings.
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of Paul, is it safe to assume that he was the one Republican that voted against the bill?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He didn't show up: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll437.xml [house.gov]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Speaking of Paul, is it safe to assume that he was the one Republican that voted against the bill?
Of course it's not [house.gov]. As with all politicians, their number 1 priority is watching out for themselves.
The sole Republican (aka the only one with balls) was Timothy Johnson (IL). Ron Paul (and our local hero, moron Chris Cannon from UT) abstained from voting at all. Considering that it's their job to read up on and vote on laws, and that's what we pay them for it would be nice if they actually did it.
That said,
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, but Ron Paul's interpretation of the constitution also seeks to overturn certain "norms" that have been around since the time of Alexander Hamilton (200+ years ago).
Ron Paul is on the fringe, and always will be. There's no way on earth he's actually going to be able to convince the senate, and the rest of the US that the gold standard is a good idea.
For a geeky point of comparison, Paul's a bit like RMS. He seems to have his heart in the right place, but is far too extreme to win over the hearts of t
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Intelligent people make decisions once a fact is confirmed. A blog post is not a fact nor is it confirmed. Try waiting for the vote.
Here is Obama's statement on the FISA bill (Score:3, Informative)
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/201032.php [talkingpointsmemo.com]
He supports it. He supposedly opposes retroactive immunity, and once last October even declared that he would filibuster a FISA bill with immunity, but he appears to have changed his mind at the last minute.
If he filibusters, perhaps I'll change my mind on donating to his campaign. But right now, he has signaled that he won't oppose this FISA bill - and further, he may even vote for it.
If you're OK with that, I suggest you campaign for him. I'm not OK with tha
Re: (Score:2)
same here, I used to be a strong supporter of Obama but as of late, that is no longer the case.
indeed, however I do not believe that the general population cares enough to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why anyone thought Senator Obama was different is beyond me. Maybe it's just his incredible charisma and oratorical skill. He's a product of Chicago politics yet people act like he's the second coming. I'm sure I'll get modded down for this. Please note for the record that I have consistently said that both sides were dirty as hell. I'm a registered Independant who wanted to believe that someone different would come along. Obama isn't that someone. Neither is McCain. They are both politicians plain
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At this point the only hope for citizens to return to constitutional governance nonviolently will be for mass general strikes throughout the United States.
I was going to mod you "+1 Funny" -- then I realized you were serious.
"Mass general strikes?" Sure, that's gonna happen. A majority of our people can't even be bothered to drag themselves to the polls once in a while, and you expect enough of them to make any small ripple of difference are going to participate in a general strike? Good luck with that. You DO understand, don't you, that the average U.S. citizen doesn't really think that any of these draconian laws and end runs around Constitutional gua
No single candidate can save you... (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the thing. I look at a lot of Obama supporters today and I see in them a lot of the same things I saw in myself when I was big into the Republican Party.
The moral of the story is that you can't buy into any single party's message, and that you need to make either political party work hard for your vote. Nobody gets screwed over by a political party more than its most loyal supporters...
We need to get past the game that we are being worked towards, where we see Democrats and Republican as enemies, and re-learn to appreciate each other as citizens. We need to tell ourselve that it is as ok to be a redneck with his cars up on blocks (that's me), as it is to be a gay couple getting married, that a man has as much right to own rifle as he does to burn the flag, that, we together have natural rights that encompass not just the bill of rights, but beyond them. And, we need to understand that when someone else is trying to get us caught up in a civil war of even a political sort, they are only doing so that in the cause of protecting us from these imagined fellow citizens as enemies, that they are taking the rights of everyone.
Re:No single candidate can save you... (Score:5, Insightful)
The way the U.S. government is going, I suspect that in due course, a man will have neither of those rights nor many others. The publics apparent view, that we only have the rights enumerated in the constitution, is appalling.
On the one side you have the Democrats working to take away second amendment protections and bolstering copyrights to corporations by eliminating fair use and public domain, while on the other side you have the Republicans working to take away those pesky privacy rights and freedom of speech.
Neither of these parties seem to represent the public in general and always they strive to expand government powers. It's a lose-lose.
Re:No more $ for Obama; time for a General Strike (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm done with giving Obama money. I want a return to constitutional governance, and supported him because I thought that's what he stood for.
He's only running for president, he ain't president yet, and it's out of his hands. If you're in his position, you've got the two options:
The simple fact of the matter is that Presidents, be they Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon or FDR, can and do routinely break the law and violate the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution, and the only thing that really brings that to a halt is getting them out of office. So worst case, you only have 4 years of tyranny.
Of course a lot of people don't seem to mind tyranny as long as gay people five states over are forbidden to marry, but that's a separate issue.
Of course, as others have pointed out, this law just formalizes Bush's arrangement for his successor, so who would you rather have running such an empowered Justice department? Neither is best, but no strong majority of Americans choose "neither," and no amount of righteous Jefferson-quoting seems to change that. The Democrats did the math and they don't lose as many votes over this as they'd lose if they handed Bush another veto, again accomplishing nothing. I don't question their commitment for a second, it's just impossible to get anything past a President without 2/3 majority in the House and 60 votes in the Senate.
a flaw in our legislative system (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just another case where multiple issues are stacked into one bill, forcing legislators to either support something they don't want or vote against something they do want. Yes there is supposed to be a solid connection between all the parts of a bill, but legislators can't vote yea on one line item and nay on another and often time the connections between items on a single bill are tenuous. Tagging unpopular items to otherwise popular bills is one of the more common forms of corruption in our legislative process.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. They turn into "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situations. If you vote for bill XYZ then you "vote to raise taxes" and if you vote against then you "fail to support the troops" or something like that.
Personally, I would like to see a central database that requires Representatives, Senators and even the President to explain their vote/veto on each vote within 24 hours of their vote.
Let them tell their side of the story in their own words at the time of the vote so later they can't come up
Re:a flaw in our legislative system (Score:4, Insightful)
Immunity (Score:3, Insightful)
It was the government that started this whole ball rolling and the telcos were (more or less) just following orders.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Immunity (Score:5, Insightful)
I always hate the comparison...but 'i was just following orders' is not and never will be an excuse to do wrong.
You say no, tell people what was wanted of you and keep saying it is wrong.
This isnt some 3rd world shithole where this deal took place.
There were phone calls and meetings between business men and US government officials. No one was going to be beaten, families raped, or killed for not following orders of the government.
The worst threat anyone in the administration or government had was to TRY to threaten a loss of government contracts. I could also see planting of stories in the media possibly but not really likely...
There was no down side to saying no to questionable requests. NONE.
What the hell ever happened to Question Authority?
Re: (Score:2)
What I did say though is the government is much more at fault for making the demands. This is kind of the same as the Nuremberg trials too as you brought up. Yes, the people carrying out the orders in holding such trials were definitely wrong and should not get off completely free, but the government that gave orders to sentence those t
Re: (Score:2)
Well before this gets all snitty...
This is nothing new [wikipedia.org].
in which
Thus, under the Nuremberg Principles, "defense of superior orders" is not a defense for war crimes, although it might influence a sentencing authority to lessen the penalty.
"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."
The United States military adjusted the Uniform Code of Military Justice after World War II. They included a rule nullifying this defense, essentially stating that American military personnel are allowed to refuse unlawful orders. This defense is still used often, however, reasoning that an unlawful order presents a dilemma from which there is no legal escape. One who refuses an unlawful order will still probably be jailed for refusing orders (and in some countries probably killed and then his superior officer will simply carry out the order for him or order another soldier to do it), and one who accepts one will probably be jailed for committing unlawful acts, in a Catch-22 dilemma.
Which is strangely followed in the list you wanted with:
Ehren Watada refused to go to Iraq on account of the Iraq war being a war of aggression, making him liable for prosecution for war crimes under the command responsibility doctrine. The judge ruled that a US soldier is not allowed to determine whether orders given are unlawful and as such this would mean he/she is forced to follow those orders he/she considers illegal, and inevitably if charged with war crimes has to resort to the I was only following orders defense.
What a wacky worrisome world we work with
Not that bad actually (Score:2)
As much as I am against the wiretapping, it isn't actually wrong to make the telcos immune to something the government required them to do. The problem is that you can't realistically punish those in government who were responsible, but that isn't a reason to go after the telcos. Does anybody actually think they had much choice in the matter? You are talking about a government which has empowered itself with the ability to request sensitive information from people and then order them to stfu about it under
Re: (Score:2)
I call bull, they are not required to be supporting towards the execs, but they are required to uphold the constitution, just like anybody else.
If the execs choose to become traitors it does not mean all should become.
I want the list of names and search terms... (Score:2)
You know what, I used to agree with you and I have argued very passionately that suing the telcos is just another way for the lawyers to get rich without accomplishing anything...
but...
I'm thinking that I want some accountability. I want names. I want search terms. I want to know who the government was searching for and why and we cannot trust that the government will tell the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't require them to do anything. They asked. Qwest was the only telco that refused to help.
Last I checked, Qwest wasn't brought up on "not doing the executive branch's bidding" charges.
Not if he can help it (Score:4, Informative)
Not if he can help it
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/21/politics/horserace/entry4200105.shtml [cbsnews.com]
This will cause a brain drain... (Score:2)
The political climate currently will cause the brightest to leave the US and earn their money else were, leaving the US with only incompetent people in leader positions. I have given up already, the US is doomed at least for the current generation and need a lot of work and attention of future ones.
I kind of understand his argument... (Score:2)
From reading the "statement", it seems like he is saying that it is more important to have the stricter penalties and a clearer law going forward than to worry about the cases that have already occurred. Personally, if I were in the senate right now and the two choices were "stop this from happening going forward, but let the first batch go through" and "nail the guys who did this, but continue to have this fight every time the issue comes up", I might just pick the future over the present. It seems like th
Civil vs Criminal (Score:3, Interesting)
Something to keep in mind. On Olberman last night a constitutional law expert basically said that this law procludes the telcos from civil liability for their actions. This is obviously bad and stupid. However it doesnt proclude them from criminal liability. The problem is no criminal case will be allowed through the justice department under this administration. The only chance of that happening would be for a new administration to make it a priority. Now, simple question, what are the chances of a McCain administration doing so?
Scapegoats? (Score:5, Insightful)
While I don't agree with what they did, I can understand why the Teclo's agreed to the situation. The Bush Administration probably assured them that were the program ever exposed, they would be granted immunity, and in the mean time they made a fair bit of money off the illegal activities of the government. Both groups should be tried for their actions, but people should be much more upset with the government over this.
Re:Scapegoats? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because a way of getting to the Wnauts is through these lawsuits.
Do you really think W is fighting this out for the telcos ?
What's special about 9/11/2001? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The idea is that in the immediate days after the attack, things were so confused and frenzied that legal protections may have fallen by the wayside. The idea is to protect people who were overzealous due to the heat of emotion. That doesn't explain why HR 6304 provides lawsuit dismissal for a period of six years following the attack.
That's the only thing that makes any kind of sense to me (I've read it in a few places.) Eliminating the basic principles that make America the land of the free seems more l
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Didn't you hear? Something magical [americanfreepress.net] happened and the rule of law ceased to exist.
McCain (Score:5, Informative)
Sure have. Apparently, we shouldn't grant immunity to the telecoms [eff.org]--no, wait, I mean we should grant immunity to the telecoms. [eff.org] Of course, the wiretapping was legal anyway [eff.org], though on second thought maybe it wasn't. [eff.org]
So there you have it: John McCain's stance on wiretapping and telecom immunity. hope that cleared things up for you. :-)
Vote Roll Call / Breakdown (Score:3, Informative)
Official House Roll Call for H R 6304
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll437.xml [house.gov]
Breakdown of votes by state, representative, etc.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-437 [govtrack.us]
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not: look at the Wikipedia history page on any contentious issue of your choice for the reason why.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why do we keep relying on "leaders" (read "rulers") to do what is right for us, even when it is almost never in their interest to do so?
Because we're stupid.
As usual, we have exactly the government we deserve.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
FTA:
"The contrary Republican was Representative Tim Johnson of Illinois, described by the Almanac of American Politics as a lawmaker "with maverick tendencies," as demonstrated by his opposition to much of the Bush administration's record on the environment."
I suppose Ron Paul was not there, perhaps because this is not the final bill. I'd have to look, but I don't have the HR#, which the article should have included to make looking it up easier.
Ron Paul was at the Montana GOP Convention (Score:3, Informative)
Ron Paul's "Not voting" (in contrast to an intentional abstention, which would have been marked as "Present") for HR 6304 is noted on Roll Call 437 [house.gov].
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter because it seems so contrary to the views of most economists, and your ideas intrigue me.
I for some reason feel inclined to believe you despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and without any evidence being presented by you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Never have, we live in a representative republic.
Re:Revolt (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why the current weapons laws are completely backwards. The weapons that are illegal are exactly the ones we need to protect democracy, and the weapons that are legal are exactly the ones we should ban.
For instance, there is no reason for handguns to be available. They are not tools of war so much as of murder.
Antitank weapons, RPGs, and heavy-caliber machineguns, however, we should have. You can't arm a rebellion with the "Saturday night specials" used to rob take-out pizza restaurants.
I know that at first glance this sounds absurd, like I'm trying to write satire -- but I'm not. It's true that I'm not sure that I'm entirely serious, but I really do think that the logic is there.
Obama (Score:3, Insightful)
If Obama wants to get the money and support of the democrat party
Obama doesn't need party funding. He's got the largest war, er campaign, chest by collecting millions of dollars off of individuals over the net. Actually he went back on his pledge to use public financing because he's doing so well fund raising. McCain is starting to use that as an issue.
Falcon