US House Rejects Telecom Amnesty

The US House has just approved a new bill that rejects the retroactive immunity to telecommunication businesses and denies most of the new powers for the US President to spy on citizens without a warrant. "As impressive as the House vote itself was, more impressive still was the floor debate which preceded it. I can't recall ever watching a debate on the floor of either House of Congress that I found even remotely impressive -- until today. One Democrat after the next -- of all stripes -- delivered impassioned, defiant speeches in defense of the rule of law, oversight on presidential eavesdropping, and safeguards on government spying. They swatted away the GOP's fear-mongering claims with the dismissive contempt such tactics deserve, rejecting the principle that has predominated political debate in this country since 9/11: that the threat of the Terrorists means we must live under the rule of an omnipotent President and a dismantled constitutional framework."

Its about damned time...

[damn_registrars]

That someone with a D after their name grows a package and stands up for something. If only it had happened several years prior as well...

Re:Its about damned time...

[Sorthum]

Forget the Democratic slur-- it's about time ANYBODY in Washington stood up for something that doesn't involve systematically stripping our rights from us. Well played, House.

Evil men doing good things

[Harmonious Botch]

This is separation of powers at work, just like the founding fathers intended. Even if they don't really believe the ideals of freedom of speech, rule of law, no unreasonable searches, etc, they are supporting them because they don't want the president to be stronger than they are.

Re:Evil men doing good things

[TubeSteak]

This is separation of powers at work, just like the founding fathers intended.

Except the powers so far seem to be Democrat versus Republican, a duopoly which the founding fathers warned of and did not want.

Re:Evil men doing good things

[lazy_nihilist]

What is with the US obsession with "founding fathers"?
I agree that they were bright thinkers of their time, but surely they can't have got EVERYTHING right. For starters, they didn't even let women and black people vote.
So instead of saying founding father this and founding father that, why not think for yourselves what is right for THIS age and time.

Re:Evil men doing good things

[Hucko]

Well, the Founding Fathers would have argued that just because something is old, it doesn't mean it is wrong. After all, the Founding Fathers were experts of their time at new stuff, but they implemented a lot of old stuff anyway.

Re:Evil men doing good things

[Moridineas]

So instead of saying founding father this and founding father that, why not think for yourselves what is right for THIS age and time.

To think that Americans do otherwise is sheer ignorance. The founding fathers are remembered because they got so much right--they designed a system that has survived 200+ years with very few changes. Nobody--originalists included--act or think the way you seem to think they do. While designing the first modern political system from the ground up, the founders and great thinkers of the period had many debates, wrote much, spoke much, and thought much. It would be foolish in the extreme to toss away an ENTIRE body of knowledge and thinking because it does not fit the intellectual trends of a moment (nihilist eh? ;-) In a situation like this, the previous poster is pointing out a perfect example of a problem that Washington warned of. Nobody is suggesting that we should keep a static society from the late 18th century, rather we should remember the ideals upon which the entire American society was founded, and be mindful of the past.

You know the old statement--those who forget history are doomed to repeat it?

Re:Evil men doing good things

[thanatos_x]

Not to put the founding fathers on a higher pedestal than they deserve, but you make a few illogical conclusions...

The colonies back then lacked any strong form of government. The articles of confederation were quite horrible from the perspective that none of the states wanted to help out other states; they each viewed themselves are independent entities. I'm not an expert, but i suspect the states under the articles loosely resemble the EU, which works fine - except that it was built on top strong governments that already worked. Clearly something needed to change, or the US wouldn't exist.

From this they made the constitution, and the current form of government. Perfect? Hardly. There were numerous compromises made, some of which the founding fathers hated. For example:

"In 1784 the provision banning slavery was narrowly defeated. Had one representative (John Beatty of New Jersey), sick and confined to his lodging, been present, the vote would have been different. "Thus," Jefferson later reflected, "we see the fate of millions unborn hanging on the tongue of one man, and heaven was silent in that awful moment.""

The problem was that they faced a deadline, and they knew there were differences between what they wanted and what the states would accept. They chose to abandon idealism as little as possible, but did abandon it for the sake of getting something that would work. Getting 80% of what they wanted was better than chaos and perhaps foreign rule. However the fact that the document has held up remarkably well for over 225 years is impressive. Judge them how you want, however the men did have vision. Whether they saw forward into a future where things completely unimaginable could happen, or they simply looked into human nature and governments and attempted to provide a framework to allow no man undue influence over the actions of another, I cannot fully say. They may have gotten lucky, and ourselves as well in the process.

Re:

[Scrameustache]

Forget the Democratic slur

The slur is on the R, we don't expect THEM to value freedom, but the Ds are supposed to human.
They've been do-nothings lately though, so everyone sucks.

Re:Its about damned time...

[Original Replica]

The slur is on the R, we don't expect THEM to value freedom

Before the Neo-Cons, there was a time when the Republican party was actually conservative."Conservatism in the United States comprises a constellation of political ideologies including fiscal conservatism, free market or economic liberalism, social conservatism, libertarianism, bioconservatism and religious conservatism, as well as support for a strong military, small government, and states' rights." [wikipedia.org] About the only aspects they still have from that old ideology is their love of a strong military, and religious conservatism.

Re:

[geekoid]

Those days are long gone.

Too many people vote republican thinking it's the same thing it was before Reagan.

Re:Its about damned time...

[Scrameustache]

Too many people vote republican thinking it's the same thing it was before Reagan.

Ahhh, good ol' Nixon... those were the days!

Re:Its about damned time...

[PONA-Boy]

It's amazing what a little fear of losing their cushy job can make a recalcitrant politician do.

There was _some_ point in our past where "Democrat" and "Republican" actually meant something. In today's American political scene, I would offer my personal analysis: The terms "Democrat" and "Republican" may be used interchangeably as both are champions of change and responsibility when they are a) in ascendancy and/or b) the underdog.

This whole Democrat == BIG government and Republican == SMALL government is so much hogswallop. The only place where there is an actual honest foundational difference in political party is in its constituents (that's you and me, folks). The "distinguished fellows" up on the Hill are just using those banners and slogans for personal gain in power/position. It is so much spin and feel-good nonsense doled out in carefully measured portions for the average person to _feel_ something.

Add to this mishmash of incredulity the personal observations I've seen of Republicans saying very "Democrat" things and vice versa. It is a mindgame being played on us.

I am a registered Republican...I have some idealized notions of government which put me in that political party. I've seen and heard nothing lately that impresses upon me that my chosen political party is _doing_ anything very "Republican" lately. I'll tell you, Bush has completely fucked ANY Republican candidate hoping to run for the office of President...good luck Senator McCain, you have a steep road to climb. How even more fucked up is it that the Democratic candidates are bitchslapping one another right now, making what should be a total cakewalk into the White House an entirely questionable affair?

OK, my diatribe about politics is over. Hooray for the House, Democratic or Republican, for crafting a bill and passing it that actually has the average American citizen's best interests in mind. Who'd've thunk it? I seethe that I voted for that sonuvabitch who thinks he can bully through such an obvious attempt to CYA for what will surely eventually be revealed as gross misappropriations of our privacy and civil liberties at the hands of the Telco's on behalf of "protecting America". I call bullshit!!

Re:Its about damned time...

[MightyMartian]

It's about goddamned time that Congress started doing it's job. It's supposed to be a balance to the powers of the Executive, it's supposed to be an independent *legislative* branch of government, but for the last seven years have simply let the Executive do whatever it wanted, and acted as a rubber stamp to what amounted to a series of Presidential decrees.

Of course, the sad part is that come November, there will probably be a Democrat president and a Democrat-dominated Congress, and we'll see the same partisan lineups which means the next President gets to rule by decree.

Washington was right. Parties are bad things.

Re:Its about damned time...

[geekoid]

Being in the miority during those years might ahve ahd something to do with it, as well as trusting what the president had said about WMDs.

At that time, it wasn't unreasonable to believe the president. Of course, now that we know he lied, he should be tossed out, perferable on the last day in office, so he still gets it noted in the history books, but Cheney has no time to do anything else.

hmm, or maybe do it sooner, and then toss Cheney out for lying as well, preferably on the same day.

Re:

[ArcherB]

Being in the miority during those years might ahve ahd something to do with it, as well as trusting what our intelligence community had said about WMDs.

At that time, it wasn't unreasonable to believe our intelligence data. Of course, now that we know they were wrong, they should given the resources to do a better job next time, preferably a better budget more power to operate without the ACLU breathing down their necks demanding to know every single operation that is ongoing.

There, made it true for ya and removed the political rhetoric.

Re:Its about damned time...

[Cassius Corodes]

What is the problem that some Americans have with the ACLU? Its an organization dedicated to protecting the constitution... to me it would seem like hating it makes about as much sense as hating kittens.

Re:Its about damned time...

[techno-vampire]

That's what it started out as. Now, it's an organization dedicated to defending those parts of the Constitution it approves of and those interpretations that match its agenda. The ACLU has made it quite plain a number of times that it will not, under any circumstances defend the Second Amendment. As long as that's its position, I, among many others, want nothing to do with it.

Re:Its about damned time...

[SoupGuru]

I was under the impression that the ACLU stayed away from 2nd Amendment issues because there are many other organization that will step in should the situation arise. The NRA being one of them.

Re:

[bill_mcgonigle]

The point of the second amendment is to provide the citizenry with the means to defend itself from the Government, should its power run out of control. Even if we had a revolution, the use of nuclear arms against the citizenry would not be an effective strategy, at least not one that wouldn't result in continual guerilla war for the forseable future against those empowered.

So, the calculation is most pragmatically which weapons are likely to be useful and effective in supporting an insurrection. Sure, the

Re:Its about damned time...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

That's what it started out as. Now, it's an organization dedicated to defending those parts of the Constitution it approves of and those interpretations that match its agenda. The ACLU has made it quite plain a number of times that it will not, under any circumstances defend the Second Amendment. As long as that's its position, I, among many others, want nothing to do with it.

Time for you to start supporting the ACLU then. [nytimes.com]

There is only so much money to go around and the NRA - which only cares about 2nd amendment issues - has an order of magnitude more funding than the ACLU does. Do you refuse to support the NRA because they won't take on other civil rights cases?

Re:

[Wavicle]

I do, however, hold the various state ACLUs to a higher standard because they claim to be interested in all civil rights.

Civil liberties. There's a difference.

ACLU is biased?

[GeekZilla]

I am not sure how you can claim being neutral on the Second Amendment constitutes the ACLU as being an "organization dedicated to defending those parts of the Constitution it approves of and those interpretations that match its agenda." They clearly state their position here (http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html). Their position statement follows:

ACLU POLICY

"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." -- Policy #47

Now, not being an expert on Supreme Court rulings, I wonder if there are later cases where the opinion of the court was different. The case the ACLU references is from 1939.

I have heard arguments that feel the definition of a "militia" is not specifically spelled out in the 2nd Amendment and is open to interpretation and that therefore what the founding fathers meant when writing about a "well regulated militia" might mean something more/different than what the ACLU interprets it to mean.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ..."

"Keep and bear arms"-If they did mean specifically "citizens" or "individuals" do you think the founding fathers meant ALL types of arms? It was pretty limited back then...cannons, pistols, rifles, swords, so maybe at that time they did. If they meant all types of arms then, do you think that would be appropriate now? There are quite a few people I can think of that don't really need to be carrying around grenades or rockets. :) My ex-wife is one example.

If they did mean individuals and arms in general and not specifically "small arms" and non-automatic weapons, then there is a constitutional right for individuals to actually own those types of weapons and where can I get mine?

It all comes down to trying to figure out what people 225+ years ago meant when they said "militia" and "arms". I guess that's why they made the Supreme Court.

Oops! Sorry. I included two different topics. I went from "The ACLU is not choosing to only promote it's own agenda" to a discussion on what the founding fathers meant by "militia" and "arms". My mind tends to wander as the caffeine wears off in the evening.

Re:ACLU is biased?

[AJWM]

US vs Miller was about the defendant having a sawed-off shotgun (on which the appropriate firearms tax had not been paid). The Supreme Court agreed with the US attorney (the defendants were not present or represented at the Supreme Court hearing) that a sawed-off shotgun is not a military weapon (they were wrong, but evidence to the contrary was not presented at trial or appeal), and so not covered by the 2nd Amendment.

By this logic, bans or restrictions on assault rifles and machine guns clearly do violate the 2nd Amendment, as they are clearly intended for military (and hence militia) use. (The court agreed with the general definition of "militia" as "all able-bodied males", not members of regular forces.)

US vs Miller is one of those bad decisions in which both sides can find something to back up their claims. The ACLU claiming that it settles the point is complete cop-out.

Re:ACLU is biased?

[HappyEngineer]

I broadly agree with what you're saying, but the following isn't right:

If they meant all types of arms then, do you think that would be appropriate now?

We shouldn't modify the meaning of the constitution based on what we think the founders would likely say about conditions today. If they meant all weapons then all weapons should be legal. If you don't want people carrying nukes around then the constitution should be modified to explicitly make exceptions for weapons that have extreme destructive power. I don't want individuals to have legal access to nukes, but we really should make an amendment to assert that desire.

Surely it would not be hard to pass an anti-personal-nuke amendment. If the supreme court didn't go around making reasonable assumptions about what the founders would have wanted then the constitution would end up reflecting what the law actually is and we wouldn't have to pick presidents based on whether they'll pick supreme court justices that we agree with.

Of course, we'd still have to pick presidents who would pick justices who treated the law with respect (which certainly hasn't happened during the last two presidential elections, so perhaps that's a pipe dream).

Re:

[muridae]

Will you, at the least, quote the whole Second Amendment?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now, why are 'the People' of the Second Amendment any different from 'the People' anywhere else?

Personally, I think it does mean all people and all weapons. I don't think the founding fathers expecting anything like nuclear weapons, but even those could be removed from citizens by an amendment instead of just

Re:ACLU is biased?

[bill_mcgonigle]

I have heard arguments that feel the definition of a "militia" is not specifically spelled out in the 2nd Amendment and is open to interpretation and that therefore what the founding fathers meant when writing about a "well regulated militia" might mean something more/different than what the ACLU interprets it to mean.

Fortunately, the Constitution comes with Cliff's Notes, the Federalist Papers. Here's what Madison had to say on the issue of the Federal military usurping power from the States (to the people of New York, specifically, in Federalist #46):

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

I'm not sure Madison could have been more clear on what a 'militia' meant in 1789, nor what its purpose was.

For the Supreme Court or the ACLU to ignore the relevant historical context is simply statist activism in disguise.

"Keep and bear arms"-If they did mean specifically "citizens" or "individuals" do you think the founding fathers meant ALL types of arms? It was pretty limited back then...cannons, pistols, rifles, swords, so maybe at that time they did. If they meant all types of arms then, do you think that would be appropriate now? There are quite a few people I can think of that don't really need to be carrying around grenades or rockets. :) My ex-wife is one example.

They meant the citizenry should be able to defend itself against an oppressive regime. Certainly small arms would be the most useful for this. WMD's probably not. Grenades, yeah, probably. The calculation is that it's beter for your ex-wife to have a grenade than for her to be put in a prison camp. Sorry, you may have to take one for the team. :)

If they did mean individuals and arms in general and not specifically "small arms" and non-automatic weapons, then there is a constitutional right for individuals to actually own those types of weapons and where can I get mine?

Ah, now you're beginning to see the lurch our forbearers have gotten us into!

Re:

[The Analog Kid]

Agreeing with the Supreme Court makes you... wait for it... Conservative.

Conservatives would argue the Supreme Court is far too liberal.

Re:Its about damned time...

[Ardeaem]

That's what it started out as. Now, it's an organization dedicated to defending those parts of the Constitution it approves of and those interpretations that match its agenda. The ACLU has made it quite plain a number of times that it will not, under any circumstances defend the Second Amendment. As long as that's its position, I, among many others, want nothing to do with it.

I love how everytime someone wants to disagree with a point of view, their opponent has an "agenda," while the people they agree with have "values." Feel free to disagree with the ACLU about the second amendment, but if you read the text of the Constitution, you understand that the second amendment is difficult to interpret. The courts in the US very rarely side with people who hold to the most pro-gun positions anyway; the ACLU is not the only one who does not interpret the second amendment in the same way that the NRA does.

The ACLU does tons of good work with free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, Fourth amendment issues, etc, etc, etc. You want nothing to do with the ACLU because of its position on ONE confusingly-worded amendment? That seems extremely shortsighted to me. Strip away your free speech rights, and advocating second amendment rights becomes terrorism. Let's make sure we keep our free speech rights so we can be free to continue to debate what our second amendment rights should be. Support the ACLU, and that will remain possible.

Re:

[atripp]

You've just taken what may be the most contorted, ambiguous, controversial half-sentence in the Bill or Rights, chopped off the weird part, and called the sentence simple.

Re:

[iamacat]

ACLU's position [aclu.org] is that private procession of some kinds of arms, such as bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and nuclear weapons is going to have to be regulated no matter when constitution says to prevent complete annihilation of our civilization. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine resisting a military force backed by corrupt federal government without some of these weapons. Therefore, it's unreasonable to oppose every gun control law.

Re:

[Original Replica]

The 2nd amendment is meant to ensure that MILITIAS continue to exist by giving INDIVIDUALS the right to keep weapons.

Beyond the fact of giving individuals the right to own weapons, it further gives those armed individuals to be a part of a well regulated militia. Not only are guns then protected, but so is being part of a practiced, organized, private group that trains in the effective military use of those guns. Not a hunting club or a target sport club, but a militia. What do you think the DHS would do

Re:

[statemachine]

Being in the miority during those years might ahve ahd something to do with it, as well as trusting what the Bush Administration had said about WMDs.

At that time, it wasn't unreasonable to believe the Bush Administration. Of course, now that we know they were wrong, they should be tried and convicted of treason.

There, made it true for ya and removed the political rhetoric.

Fixed it for both of you. 935 [publicintegrity.org].

Re:

[ArcherB]

At that time, it wasn't unreasonable to believe the Bush Administration. Of course, now that we know they were wrong, they should be tried and convicted of treason.

Sorry, but being wrong is not an impeachable offense, much less treason.

Re:

[statemachine]

Meant to change that to "lied." My bad. You didn't read the link, obviously.

Re:Its about damned time...

[bckrispi]

Sorry, but being wrong is not an impeachable offense, much less treason.

Sorry, right back at you. A President may be impeached for any "High crime or Misdemeanor". An 18th century synonym of "Misdemeanor" is "an act of incompetence". If being wrong about something winds up costing half a trillion dollars and 4000 American lives isn't incompetence, I don't know what is.

Re:Its about damned time...

[HTH NE1]

How about violation of his oath of office, to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States"? Or, as he put it, "a fucking piece of paper"?

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face; it's just a fucking piece of paper!"
--Words of Treason from sitting U.S. President George W. Bush

Re:Its about damned time...

[statemachine]

Hmm, another person who didn't read the link. Bush discarded the information given to him by the intelligence community and made up his own. Here's that link again: 935 [publicintegrity.org]. I can't help you if you're not willing to read it.

Re:Its about damned time...

[MightyMartian]

Lots of regimes have mass graves, torture rooms and every affront to civilization one can imagine. The United States has not historically leaped to the defense of the citizens of such nations before, and has, in fact, in some cases, actively supported governments that committed such atrocities (Chile comes to mind). Where was the United States when hundreds of thousands (including women and children) were being cut down in Rwanda? Where is the United States with the atrocities in Darfur?

No, it simply will not do to try to excuse the illegal invasion of Iraq as some sort of humanitarian action. The precise reasons for it are vague to me, although it's pretty damned clear that there was some part family pride (the son finishing what many thought the father ought to have), access to a major source of oil (a classic war for resources) and maybe even a genuine lack of understanding that the Baathists, as vile a bunch as you can imagine, were not Islamists, and in fact, maintained power in part by harassing and murdering the types of religious fanatics who are likely to join Al Qaeda. I can well imagine from a man like George W. Bush an incredibly ignorant and one-dimensional understanding of the region.

Re:Its about damned time...

[n8_f]

Lying under oath, which is what Clinton did, is 100% impeachable. Lying in general, not so much.

You do not understand what impeachment is.
U.S. Consitution, Article II, Section 4:

Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Or, as Gerald Ford put it [wikipedia.org], "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

Re:

[Scrameustache]

Lying under oath, which is what Clinton did

He didn't, he followed a narrowed court definition of "sexual relations" that was limited to coitus.

Re:Its about damned time...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I've never beaten my wife. Now, answer my questions.

You answered it yourself.

You asked a loaded question, I asked a loaded question.
You answered with the same response your loaded question deserves.

Re:Its about damned time...

[pitchpipe]

How is this informative. If you don't like or disagree with what the person said, respond to their argument. Changing what they said and then saying made it true for ya seems rather childish. If you don't believe the president distorted the evidence provided by the intelligence community, let us know what makes you believe that.

Re:

[statemachine]

They won't listen. Remember that these are the hardcore 30% that keep approving of Bush's job [pollingreport.com]. Even though he and his administration have been lying and distorting the truth [publicintegrity.org] for some time now. They won't read the links that show his illegal activities such as unprecedented overturning of the EPA. [sfgate.com]

These same people would vote for Bush again. With all the evidence out there, it makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Re:Its about damned time...

[Scrameustache]

At that time, it wasn't unreasonable to believe the president.

I'm sorry, but it was unreasonable.

It wasn't trust based on rational thought, it was based on emotion. Fear, anger, panic.

I didn't trust him then anymore than I do now, because I do not base the trustworthiness on a person on their position of authority nor their space-time proximity to an awe-inspiring event.

Re:Its about damned time...

[blueg3]

Indeed. A lot of people didn't trust him at the time, and a lot of people disagreed with going to war before we even did so. Now, when politicians start up with "if we knew then what we know now..." business, I can't help but think that apparently a lot of people are more well-informed than they.

Re:Its about damned time...

[ArcherB]

That someone with a D after their name grows a package and stands up for something. If only it had happened several years prior as well...

Sounds to me like they just gave a bunch of pretty speeches.

I haven't read the bill that was passed, but it seems like it's a bunch of the same, minus the telecom immunity. Maybe I'm reading this wrong.. well, take a look. From HERE [myway.com]

The surveillance law is intended to help the government pursue suspected terrorists by making it easier to eavesdrop on international phone calls and e-mails between foreigners abroad and Americans in the U.S, and remove barriers to collecting purely foreign communications that pass through the United States- for instance, foreign e-mails stored on a server.

Re:

[KevinIsOwn]

As long as there is judicial oversight, making it easier to eavesdrop isn't necessarily bad. Remember that it's good to do new things to combat terrorism if they are within the scope of the constitution. I have not had a chance to see the exact changes that this bill proposes, so I will not give my judgment (I know, this is /. so I really should be yelling and screaming).

Re:

[flaming error]

> That someone with a D after their name ... stands up for something

The problem the Dems have is they rarely act as a team. I am pleased as punch that they chose to come together, on the side of the people, for this issue. The bill of rights has been beaten down time and time again, so this rare display of coherence and competence was very well-placed. Good job, o thee who've adopted the jackass as your symbol. May those who've adopted the jackass as their character be soundly defeated and roundly s

Re:

[techno-vampire]

May those who've adopted the jackass as their character be soundly defeated and roundly slapped down.

Can I presume, then, that you're planning on voting for McCain in November?

Re:Its about damned time...

[ppanon]

The reason why the Bush administration wants the blanket immunity is to cover their own asses for after 2008. The Democrats won't bother doing anything now because they know the Justice Department will cover Bush's ass. But after January '09, Presidential pardons likely will no longer be an option.

When Bush leaves, criminal prosecutions by a Democrat-run Justice Department against telecom employees might get them to inform on the illegal behaviour carried out by Bush administration officials in a plea bargain. With telecom immunity however, the Bush/Telecom omerta can continue.

Re:Its about damned time...

[ppanon]

What's to stop Bush from issuing a blanket pardon after the elections just before leaving office, hmmm?

  Wikipedia says:
"The Justice Department recommends anyone requesting a pardon must wait five years after conviction or release prior to receiving a pardon. A presidential pardon may be granted at any time, however, and as when Ford pardoned Nixon, the pardoned person need not yet have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime. Clemency may also be granted without the filing of a formal request and even if the intended recipient has no desire to be pardoned."

Now, apart for Scooter Libby, nobody in the administration has actually been indicted, let alone convicted, of a crime for warantless wiretapping, torture, etc. Presidential Pardons shouldn't apply to the sitting President himself, so a Bush pre-emptive blanket pardon for all crimes involving FISA violations or torture (for example) would probably be invalid if Bush would be a beneficiary of that pardon. That might get appealed to the Supreme Court and who knows how they would vote now, but a good prosecutor might have enough motivation for pursuing it that far. More specific individual pardons would effectively identify who was guilty and what they were guilty of. Some may prefer to take their chances that they won't be found out than be outed by a pardon since it could destroy their career if they're a non-appointed government employee.

We're talking potentially hundreds of people here, so such an egregious abuse of the Presidential Pardon could even fuel the drive for a constitutional amendment to remove the power, although I doubt the Dems would be willing to give it up. You never know though: while there's obviously Clinton's infamous 140 last minute pardons, Republican politicians and their flunkies have generally been the bigger beneficiaries from Presidential Pardons in the last 40 years.

Ah, I knew it!

[A beautiful mind]

Bill Foster [wikipedia.org] hacked their speech generators!

OT

[ArcherB]

One Democrat after the next -- of all stripes -- delivered impassioned, defiant speeches in defense of the rule of law, oversight on presidential eavesdropping, and safeguards on government spying.

All that's well and good, but what does it have to do with telecom immunity? I'm not defending it either way, but when you are debating to decide whether or not to give immunity to telecoms, why bring up congressional oversite of the President? Shouldn't they be debating "oversite of the telecomes"? If your problem is with the Prez, wait until you are debating a bill that limits immunity of the President, not the telecoms. Sorry, but bringing your desire to reign in the Prez during a telecoms debate is

Re:

[geekoid]

Becasue the telcom immunity would have protected the office of then president as well. The office of the president has to abide by laws as well, regardless of what the president says.
This whole thing stems from the current president trying to get more power.

In other words: This allows for the president to act without oversight.

Plus, it's politics.

It is very clear that todays republican party is about being in control of your life.

It's been going that way since Reagan. No surprise considering the same people

Re:

[ArcherB]

Becasue the telcom immunity would have protected the office of then president as well.

How is that?

Plus, it's politics.

DING DING DING... we have a winner!

It is very clear that todays republican party is about being in control of your life.

I disagree. It seems to me that the Republicans want to know what you doing. The Democrats want to tell you what to do. It's not Republicans telling what kind of car I should drive, what kind of food I can eat and if, when, and where I want to have a cigarette. It's not Republicans telling me what kind of health care I should have and it's not Republicans trying to take away my money to give it to someone else. It's not Republicans who are trying to use

Re:OT

[Wonko the Sane]

it's not Republicans trying to take away my money to give it to someone else

That was true at one time. But this current president has expanded entitlements to more people than any other period in history. They just call it by different words. "Tax cut" sounds a lot better to conservatives than "welfare check".

The "Earned Income Credit" allows for tax refunds in excess of the amount paid in taxes. Call it what you will, but I call a refund amount of >100% welfare.

If the republicans wanted to run on a platform of "we're going to give cash handouts to millions of people and pay for it by borrowing from the future", then they should have just come out and said that.

Re:OT

[SEAL]

It's not Republicans telling what kind of car I should drive, what kind of food I can eat and if, when, and where I want to have a cigarette. It's not Republicans telling me what kind of health care I should have and it's not Republicans trying to take away my money to give it to someone else. It's not Republicans who are trying to use taxes to affect my behavior (carbon and gas taxes) and it's not Republicans who want to put a remote control on my thermostat so they can turn my AC down if THEY think I'm using too much electricity.

No, they just want to tell you that you can't have an abortion, tell you that you can't be taught the theory of evolution, tell you that you need a national ID card, tell you that your kids and their kids may be in Iraq well into the distant future, and tell you that Uncle Sam can be trusted to monitor your every move.

You sound much more Libertarian than Republican. The Republican Party in its current format has strayed far, far away from the old model of states' rights and limited government.

Re:OT

[lenski]

Becasue the telecom immunity would have protected the office of then president as well.

How is that?

The telecoms need only to provide documents showing legal justification for their actions, and they're basically off the hook.

Guess who doesn't want any investigation of said legal justification?

take away my money to give it to someone else

Go live in your libertarian utopia and take your attitude with you. I suggest though that you work out a lot first, as the first person stronger than you will have plenty of fun with you. You will find that everyone eventually meets someone stronger or faster, and without the protection of civilized society, things get seriously uneven seriously quickly. The purpose of taxes and the occasional leg up for people down on their luck is an efficient way to restore their productivity, so they can make net contributions to the society.

The point of helping people out is to get them productive: it's an investment, not a giveaway. There are times when the investment doesn't work out but by and large, people tend to want to produce.

Re:OT

[timeOday]

I disagree. The telecoms' defense amounts to "the president made me do it." If that's a valid defense, then essentially there is no rule of law, just the whim of the king. So which is higher, the president or the law? That's the real question at issue here.

Re:

[ArcherB]

The telecoms' defense amounts to "the president made me do it."

Then go after the president.

Re:OT

[whoever57]

The telecoms' defense amounts to "the president made me do it."

Then go after the president.

At the risk of invoking Godwin, didn't the Nuremburg trials show once and for all that "I was ordered to do it" is not a valid defense?

Re:OT

[DragonWriter]

At the risk of invoking Godwin, didn't the Nuremburg trials show once and for all that "I was ordered to do it" is not a valid defense?

They certainly showed that it wasn't when the orders came from the leadership on the losing side of a war, and the winning side is making the judgements.

Re:

[ArcherB]

Then go after the President

There aren't enough votes to make that happen (especially since he'll be out of office 10 months from now anyway).

So you go after the telecoms? It's not their fault that Congress can not muster balls to get the votes to go after the Prez.

Re:OT

[jb68321]

Hm I suppose you MAY have missed the article that came out (from the Wall Street Journal no less) that talked about a huge NSA spying program, which includes -everyone- in the city of Detroit, everyone they talked to, among millions of other people whose emails, etc got flagged by some NSA program. I'd link but their site requires subscription. The NSA pulled bank, phone, credit card, etc records for millions of innocent individuals and shared them with many other government agencies.

This type of government-funded, classified-budget project, plus all the other recent revelations about warrant-less wiretapping (demanded by the Bush administration officials on account of their terrorist-finding programs) amounts to a huge case against the Bush administration itself. If the administration had not demanded the info, which is illegal itself thanks to the Constitution, the ISPs would not have had to give up info... not that they had to, and doing so was also illegal IMHO. Anyways you can't possibly say it was only the ISP's fault without acknowledging the government was giving them hell in the meantime.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_security_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org [nytimes.com]

Re:

[ArcherB]

This type of government-funded, classified-budget project, plus all the other recent revelations about warrant-less wiretapping (demanded by the Bush administration officials on account of their terrorist-finding programs) amounts to a huge case against the Bush administration itself. If the administration had not demanded the info, which is illegal itself thanks to the Constitution, the ISPs would not have had to give up info... not that they had to, and doing so was also illegal IMHO. Anyways you can't possibly say it was only the ISP's fault without acknowledging the government was giving them hell in the meantime.

Right, then go after the President, not the ISPs or the telecoms. If the telecoms were "given hell" from the administration if they didn't cooperate, then they should gladly testify against the administration.

By not giving immunity to the telecoms, you are going to have a bunch of people suing the shit out of them (which we all end up paying for) because they are mad at the president. If you mad at the Prez, go after the Prez!

Re:

[NeutronCowboy]

If someone is suing the shit out of the telecoms, and the telecoms lose, doesn't that mean that the telecoms shouldn't have done what they did?

Rule of law ALWAYS applies to everyone. People need to learn that even the president cannot make them perform illegal acts.

Re:

[rhakka]

so companies that violate the consitution in collusion with an administration already proven, shall we say, less than concerned with due process goes out of business.

Yes, I'm sure no one will ever work a phone again. no doubt.

There are companies that did not comply, first of all. Secondly, sending a very, very clear message that the correct answer to a government request for private information on your customers is "Where is your warrant?", not "What data format would you like?", is worth nearly any price

Re:OT

[DragonWriter]

I'm not defending it either way, but when you are debating to decide whether or not to give immunity to telecoms, why bring up congressional oversite of the President?

The kind of immunity for the telecoms sought by the Administration would have presented lawsuits against them which, because of governmental immunities, standing issues, and other problems, are pretty the most probable way, if not the only way, that any of the facts necessary to hold the executive accountable are likely to come out in practice.

It also would encourage large companies to violate the law at the behest of the executive in future cases (and not only in this particular area), by setting the example that such violations would be the subject of retroactive immunity. By encouraging lawbreaking at the behest of the President, it would, therefore, have reduced the degree to which the law served as a practical constraint on executive action.

So this law, that superficially concerning immunity for telecoms, had a serious impact on the practical accountability of the President to the law, something which Members of Congress unsurprisingly did not miss, and perhaps more surprisingly actually pointed out and acted upon.

Yay

[ShedPlant]

I'm very pleased to hear this. I'm sure the Democratic congressmen know this will play well in the next election, however: wait and see if they're honest about civil liberties in two to four years time, if they get the White House too and can set the legislative agenda.

Separation of powers is a good thing; the more conflict between the White House and Capitol Hill, the less the rights and incomes of the American citizenry will be eroded.

Re:

[iknownuttin]

...the more conflict between the White House and Capitol Hill,...

Yes!!

I was talking to someone the other day about the coming elections and I just said that I vote third party but I really want a Republican in the Whitehouse as long as we have a Democrat controlled Congress. Because whenever one party controls the Executive and the Legislative branches of Government, regardless of which party, we get out of control spending, Civil Liberties are trumped upon, ... just horrible Government.

This person said,

Bravo!

[Rinisari]

Bravo!

Maybe there is hope of a Revolution

[FromTheAir]

Maybe their is hope that we the people can defeat the few that benefit to the detriment of the many.

It is all about awareness and unity.

Spying and secracy does not really protect National Security.

The actuality is this spying capability is a threat to national security in that it allows a few people in control to shut down any political opposition.

What took them so long?

[Original Replica]

That's great news, but it is somewhat diminished by the Democrats waiting two years to start to do what they where elected for in 2006. I'm glad that "but but the TERRORISTS!" doesn't have so much sway any more.

George W's reply to the House of Representatives:

[MichaelCrawford]

"Why do you hate Freedom?"

Re:George W's reply to the House of Representative

[twoallbeefpatties]

Bush's reply has been something along the lines of, "There are men and women out there dying in Iraq. We need this bill to pass so that we can go back to making the world safe for our soldiers and our families. So please hurry up and make telephone companies immune from prosecution."

The major disconnect here has been that Bush has had plenty of opportunity to just sign the bill and go back to listening in on phone conversations. The fact that he has hung the entire bill on the passage of retroactive immunity has made it clear that he's either just fucking around and seriously doesn't care about what the military agenda is, or he's clearly got something to hide involving those phone companies. Either way, I'ma go make a bag of popcorn and wait to see what happens next.

Just because it's new to you....

[Rahga]

"I can't recall ever watching a debate on the floor of either House of Congress that I found even remotely impressive -- until today. One Democrat after the next -- of all stripes -- delivered impassioned, defiant speeches in defense of the rule of law, oversight on presidential eavesdropping, and safeguards on government spying."

Really? Ever? Do you really think this is the first time that an executive branch was impassionately challenged by a House controlled by an opposing party. This is nothing new nor

My Thoughts Earlier Today

[Evets]

I reviewed the Declaration of Independence today, and wrote this. I feel it is somewhat relevant. Though there still exists the problem of pushing the bill through the Senate, and then overriding the inevitable veto if this bill were to go through (neither of which is likely), the fact that the House did not just roll over to provide retroactive immunity shows that there is some sense of reason within at least a few of our elected leaders.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established s

This Might Not Survive Conference Committee

[MichaelCrawford]

This bill has only been passed by the House of Representatives. The Senate has already passed a bill that gives Bush everything he wants. What happens now is that the two bills will be "reconciled" by a conference committee, that will then yield the bill that actually gets passed - or not.

What You Need To Do Now:

If you are a US citizen, visit Congress.org [congress.org] and enter your zip code in the Search box to find out who your Representative and Senators are. Then write them a letter urging them to uphold the House's version of the bill in the conference committee.

Don't bother with email; if you can't write a letter, call them on the phone.

Emphasize the importance of the Constitution and the rule of law.

Urge them not to compromise, if the President does veto the final bill. It would be much better not to pass a bill at all than to allow this travesty of justice to continue.

My letter is going to point out that all the telcos knew they were breaking the law when they committed their crimes. Such criminal acts should be treated as such. IMHO, there shouldn't need to be civil lawsuits filed by those who were spied upon; all of the telco employees involved, as well as all the government officials involved, should be put in prison for a good long time.

You can't prosecute a sitting president, but what you can do is impeach him, and that's what should happen to Bush.

Something I don't get

[Weaselmancer]

Why are we so concerned about the telcos and their responsibility? How about the people who had them do the eavesdropping in the first place?

I think we're going after the red cape and not the matador here. We're being distracted away from the actual guilty parties.

Re:

[ppanon]

The Bush administration controls the Justice Department and they are blocking prosecution to protect their cronies in the CIA, NSA, and FBI who broke the law. The Democrats are trying to keep the Bush administration from completely shutting the door on prosecutions if the Republicans lose power in 2009. If an honest Justice Department can prosecute the Telcos in 2009, then they can use plea bargains to obtain evidence for prosecutions against the government-employed instigators of the crimes. If not, all t

Huh?

[PPH]

I read the summary describing "impassioned, defiant speeches" (I didn't read TFA. I don't need another 'free' account).

Wasn't this session sopposed to be closed [slashdot.org]?

So congressional democrats care about freedom now?

[mosb1000]

I'll try to keep that in mind while I listen to them talk about raising my taxes and taking away my guns.

OMG

[DarkProphet]

Too little, too late. Seven years ago would have been an opportune time to put the administration in its place. We've already allowed them to alienate our inalienable rights, and we've paid them nearly a half a trillion dollars for the privilege. I'm sorry, but 2 blown up buildings, three lost airliners, and ~4000 dead civilians aren't worth the price of my essential liberty or yours. If our loss was tenfold it still would not and could not justify disregard for our civil liberties. And that is to say nothing about the skyrocketing oil prices and the fact that nearly the whole rest of the world hates us. For what? Safety? Security? Its an illusion, and always has been. Remember that, the next time they make you take off your shoes at the airport. Its nothing cabin door locks and a few air marshalls couldn't fix. There is no safety guarantee in life. We all run the risk of something bad happening to us every time we leave our homes for the day. Any day could be the day you don't come home. More Americans die every year of self-induced injuries (alcohol abuse, drug use, smoking, and obesity to name a few), but I don't see a half a trillion dollar initiative to solve THOSE problems. Its a sorry state of affairs when the land of the free is fleeced due to a glorified snipe hunt, and sorrier yet that the whole scheme has been perpetrated by those sworn to faithfully uphold the ideals and best interests of the American people. And sorriest of all is that you and I have done it to ourselves by allowing these criminals to frighten us and rob is of our rights, dignity, and tax dollars in the name of protection against a bogeyman that simply doesn't exist. I am certain that our founding fathers would have some stern worlds on the subject -- oh, well they did, its called the Constitution, but fuck it, we threw that out the window seven years ago. We will get exactly what we deserve. But hey, as long as we have Blu-Ray, American Idol, and Ipods, its all good right?

In the timeless words of Charlie Brown: Good grief!

Re:This sucks.

[Animats]

It doesn't matter if Bush vetoes it. Under current law, there is no telecom immunity. EFF vs. AT&T [eff.org] goes forward.

Something WAS accomplished

[StefanJ]

They congresspeople who put this bill together stood up to the Bush administration's paranoid, fear-mongering bullshit. Their actions mean that they've gone on record stating that telecomm immunity has nothing to with national security.

It's precedent. It's courage.

Would you have preferred they do nothing? Stood around and bitched about The Man?

Re:

[More_Cowbell]

Would you have preferred they do nothing? Stood around and bitched about The Man?

No, I would prefer if our government wasn't just a big game of smoke and mirrors.

Re:

[Greyfox]

That's not entirely true. Retroactive immunity has not become law yet. If nothing gets done, there will be no retroactive immunity and the next administration is not likely to be quite as friendly to anyone who acted illegally in this matter.

If it gets held up for too long I could see the administration pursuing quick prosecutions of the managers of those companies so that pardons can be issued prior to the next administration taking power. We'll see if the house blinks before the President does. Congress

Re:

[bluefoxlucid]

Speaking of which, does anyone have a list of all the House and Senate members who voted pro-torture a week or two ago?

You mean the ones that voted against a bill that had no meaning outside US citizens because the military has its own law and its own court system and this was a federal bill affecting stateside affairs?

Re:This sucks.

[Bovius]

I disagree. Passing a good bill that is doomed to failure is better than passing a bad bill to maintain the appearance of "getting things done."

Veto?

[rucs_hack]

If Bush uses his Veto then that would be a very bad move politically, even if it served his interests (and they are his, a veto would not serve the public interest at all on this matter), what with the elections and all, it would say all sorts of things about the republicans that they wouldn't want said at this time.

Ok, the Veto exists for a good reason, but just having a power doesn't mean you should over-use it. It's not meant to turn a president into a dictator.

Re:

[More_Cowbell]

Are you seriously trying to imply that Bush has demonstrated previously that he gives a flying fsck about his approval ratings, or what are good political moves? Hell, McCain does not even want Bush to campaign for him.

Re:

[More_Cowbell]

The normal function of government is to keep making things worse. This time, things are going to get worse more slowly. That's a victory.

And that is a quote from someone who sees how shitty things are, are getting worse, and still wants to be optimistic. Not sure if I want to congratulate you or...

Re:

[bluefoxlucid]

Mod parent up +1 lol!

Re:

[LowellPorter]

The Democrats can talk all they want on the House floor, but it's all hypocritical political posturing. The fact is, the Democrat-controlled Congress APPROVED the surveillance program...

Exactly. The Democrat's don't care about civil rights anymore than the Republicans do. This was done to support one of the largest groups of people that financially support the Democrats - the trial lawyers. Since there is not going to be immunity, then they will 'sue the pants off' whomever they can think of. They're goi

Re:

[Moridineas]

Seems to me that slashdot editors have figured out that "geeks" in the loosest sense of the term (and including the huge young generation of upper-middle-class internet junkies) are a far bigger market than the original hardcore science/computer/linux/whatever nerds that slashdot used to focus on. Makes sense--just look at the politics articles, they're the most commented on.

Can't say I like the slashdot editors objectively unobjective stands, but hey, it's what makes them money, I can't really complain abo

Re:

[DragonWriter]

The President can't pardon civil offenses, only criminal offenses, so it won't have any effect. On the criminal side, the way the applicable statutes are written, its people in the executive branch that would be most likely to be liable anyway, and its hard as if this administration is going to prosecute them in the first place, so pardons aren't likely to be necessary except on the way out the door to protect against anything the next administration might do.

Re:This doesn't address the issue.

[MightyMartian]

While obviously telecoms KNEW better, its hard to say 'no' to your nation's president

And that suggests that biggest problem with how the Presidency has evolved. The Presidency was not supposed to be some sort of regal position, save in the ceremonial respect (where the President is the equivalent of a king or emperor). If the President of the United States asks you to do something illegal, it is, under the law, no different than any other citizen of the United States asking you to do something illegal. You say no, because you're opening yourself up to possible prosecution or civil reparations.

Re:

[MightyMartian]

George Washington knew this was the inevitable result of the formation of parties, and warned against it in his farewell speech. I think it's something that all Americans should be mindful of:

"All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. Th

Re:

[Legion303]

In other good news, the administration's actions over the last 6.5 years have also kept "deaths by wooly mammoth" at zero (as measured by the yardstick of "number of deaths by wooly mammoth"). I think that's something we can all get behind.