Telecom Amnesty Opponents Back New Amendment 250
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "With the telecoms all but assured of amnesty for their participation in illegal spying, there's now one last amendment in their way — the Bingaman amendment. Because President Bush is unwilling to sign FISA reform without immunity, and because Blue Dog Democrats fear for their reelection unless FISA reform as a whole passes, most compromise positions are already off the table. So the new amendment seeks to sidestep part of the problem by moving it to a later date. It would put the court cases and amnesty provision on hold until a report is completed detailing exactly what happened, allowing Congress to consider denying amnesty at that time. There's an EFF campaign to support both this and the Dodd-Feingold amendment, which would strip immunity altogether."
step one (Score:2, Interesting)
step 1: retroactive immunity
step 2: retroactive crimes
step 3: prophet
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Look, can we just leave Mohammed out of this, please? Also, you left out ????.
Hum interesting (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
They are doing society a service by making the information public but it's still a crime that they could be prosecuted for and most likely go to jail for if they became known.
Re:Hum interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Hum interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
I firmly believe immunity for ANYONE is too much
Really? So you'd willingly testify in front of a Grand Jury without it? Is giving immunity to Al Capone's bean-counter (who only committed white-collar crimes) in exchange for his testimony to convict Capone of murder a bad idea? Immunity as a concept has been around in our legal system for quite some time and has nothing to do with retroactive immunity for the telecoms.
The idea that immunity makes whistleblowing more likely is a bunch of bullshit and always has been. You shouldnt need immunity if you did nothing wrong
I guess you've never heard of being scapegoated?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I thought Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
He was -- I was referencing a well known name to make my argument. If you have to let someone skate on lesser charges to convict someone else of murder.... well that's usually worth doing, isn't it?
Re:Hum interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes immunity is simply recognition that any illegal actions the whistleblower took were under duress and so shouldn't be prosecuted. It's also a handy way to prevent well connected people who wish he had kept quiet from abusing the prosecutor's office to exact revenge.
Finally, it weakens the strategy of slowly leading people (such as the whistleblower) into a position where they are no longer able to blow the whistle due to peripheral involvement in serious crimes (or even just the perception of it).
For example, suppose I'm the crime boss and I need to recruit people who will keep quiet. I hire you for a seemingly legal job that you perform adequately for a year (for example, warehouse manager). What you didn't know is that for a year you've been putting your name on invoices for illegal goods and placing phone calls to hardened criminals. One day, you put it all together.
At that point, YOU know you didn't realize what was happening, but I'll make you acutely aware of how bad it might look to a prosecutor. That won't be too hard, it does look bad. I may even deliberately commit a crime in your presence (or have a subordinate do it) making sure there is plenty of evidence of your involvement (but little to show it was unwilling).
You might even go along for a bit, especially after the comment "that's a nice family you have there. I'd be a shame if anything happened to them".
Granting you immunity in exchange for testimony would be a huge load off your mind. If you know immunity for whistleblowers is customary, it encourages you to come forward rather than just disappear and hope never to hear about any of it again.
Most cases of whistleblowing involve white collar crime rather than Mafia style operations, but there are similar principles involved. When an Enron style crime happens, there's a lot of accountants involved who didn't have enough of the big picture to know immediately that a crime was taking place, but their name will appear uncomfortably frequently.
I wish we could learn something useful from (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not so sure of that. Isn't France one of those places where you're presumed guilty until proven innocent?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
De facto, not de jure, the same as any system in which accused are held on remand. The significant difference is that French courts are inquisitorial. This is actually more common than the adversarial system used by England and its colonies.
Re: (Score:2)
Not anymore; they changed a number of years ago. (Apparently many French though it was a weird idea -- but apparently not enough to prevent it.)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be gitmo you're thinking about ...
or maybe Devil's Island [wikipedia.org]?
Ever read about 3 strikes and you're out ISP law? (Score:2)
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/03/2156204 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As a French friend once told me, "You Americans don't know how to fight the government."
Get the tractors out, boys!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The French government is afraid of its people, and thus responsive, because every couple years the French have a great big riot, just to prove they still can. Hell, the current system is called the French Fifth Republic. Why the fifth? Because they replaced the other 4. The last time they kicked their entire government out of office and replaced the system was only 50 years ago.
Blame the telecoms for government-forced demands? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:5, Insightful)
They should be prosecuted (along with Bush and crooks) to the fullest extent of the law.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:5, Insightful)
Like I said, if it was a request then I could understand not granting immunity. If it was demanded by the government, then it would be justifiable to grant them immunity. Of course the government is above the law, but companies should not be punished for government crimes.
No, the Government is not above the law. Please do not stop in the Bush droppings.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you are ordered to do something illegal in the military, you are not held responsible.
BULLSHIT! The Nuremberg trials established that "I was only following orders" is not an excuse. If americans don't accept that, well, tough.
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, yes, we get it. The people who actually commit the crime are the victims here, just like those poor, poor mafia members paid to break legs and toss people in the lake with concrete shoes. They're just trying to make a living, can't we all cut them a break?!
If it was demanded by the government
Qwest refused and nobody went to jail. There was no "demand," just the government giving companies money to perform illegal acts.
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:5, Insightful)
Not true. Google "Nacchio" "Qwest" and "jail." The fact is that Quest's refusal made Nacchio a target for political prosecution at the ham-hands of Bush/Gonzoles' Do"J."
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The biggest mis-conception is that Telecom companies were victims in all this; that the big mean government threatened them and they caved in out of fear. This just isn't true. It's not like they did the wiretapping for free, they charged and profited from it. Furthermore, by playing ball they received other sweetheart billion-dollar government deals, while companies like Quest were specifically denied. In fact, one of the lesser
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:5, Insightful)
Like I said, if it was a request then I could understand not granting immunity. If it was demanded by the government, then it would be justifiable to grant them immunity.
I thought we discussed this the last ten times this came up? Complying with an illegal order is itself an illegal act. It doesn't matter if you are a soldier or operating a telecom. If your CO orders you to commit rape, and you do it, you are committing an illegal act. If your government orders to to execute an illegal wiretap, and you do it, you are committing an illegal act. See how that works?
The only way this is NOT true is if they actually pass a law that says you can be wiretapped without a warrant; THEN and ONLY THEN is it legal. It might be argued that some laws already passed give the government the right to tap any and all communications during an undeclared state of emergency or something; that is a valid legal defense if it turns out to be true. But NOTHING repeat NOTHING excuses complying with an illegal order. Well, except congressional action of course...
Of course the government is above the law, but companies should not be punished for government crimes.
WHAT?
WHAT?!>?! (emphasis, you know)
The government is most certainly not above the law. YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT. Or more to the point, it is made up of individuals who can be hauled into court.
Above the law? What the hell is wrong with you?
Were you paid to say this, or are you just brainwashed?
I say this to people occasionally, but people like you really ARE the problem with America today. "The government did it, so it must be okay!" Are you REALLY that deluded?
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree and I think a lot of people feel the same way, if you do then mod parent up please.
I think most Americans have no idea about the level illegality that our government has risen to; not just this current administration, (though they are by far the most egregious) - this telecom immunity thing is bad enough - but if you consider that is going on in the light of day now, just imagine all of the things that the general public isn;t aware of - there are many things you can find out about if you are a good researcher or read books that have been thoroughly researched (Jim Marrs, Greg Palast are two authors I highly recommend as their credibility is excellent) - if you are interested in the Bush dynasty there are many books but anything by Webster Tarpley is great, you can get his unauthorized biography of George Bush senior fo free on the web (as it has been out of print or supressed for a while now) with this link: http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm [tarpley.net].
I am not sure if our republic is past the point of no return, but I fear that. I think people are putting a lot of hope into Obama, and I agree that he seems genuine, but the man is a politican and has taken votes or actions that would seem to be contrary to his stated message of change - like supporting telecom immunity. I fear that if he did get into office and really did try to make some real changes his life would be in danger; but what seems most likely s that he will get into office and be sort of like Clinton - not willing or able to live up to 10% of what he promised.
I thought that the people who really could have made some changes are people like Ron Paul and Mike Gravel - Richardson wasn't bad either - but until the issue with the media being a corporate/governmental mouthpiece is resolved, I am afraid that there may never be real change here.
Granting immunity for illegal, unconstitutional acts after the fact is not only wrong and unconsitutional, it sets a HORRIBLY DANGEROUS PRECEDENT - and this is one aspect people are not considering. IF this precedent is set - then government can basically make anything legal after the fact. If this sort of thing continues, eventually they won't even need to that to do what they like.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
WHAT?
WHAT?!>?! (emphasis, you know)
The government is most certainly not above the law. YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT. Or more to the point, it is made up of individuals who can be hauled into court.
Above the law? What the hell is wrong with you?
Were you paid to say this, or are you just brainwashed?
I say this to people occasionally, but people like you really ARE the problem with America today. "The government did it, so it must be okay!" Are you REALLY that deluded?
Given the way his sentence read: "Of course the government is above the law, but companies should not be punished for government crimes.", I'd say it was an omission, and he meant "Of course the government is not above the law...".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You dolt, that was a typo on my part, which should have been obvious given the statement I was replying to and my use of the phrase "of course". Anyone who thinks the government is above the law is only doing so to save their asses because they are members of the government and they've done something wrong.
As for your spiel about illegal acts from illegal orders - there is a difference between forcing someone to do something at gunpoint or on threat of punishment, for which there is no way out,
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:4, Insightful)
In this case with the telecoms, the current law and the law at the time of the incidents gave the telecoms a complete defense against any civil or criminal prosecution resulting under any law if the government presented them with legal looking authorization.
If everything they did was legal at the time, then why such an intense need to make it retroactively legal now? Let them defend themselves in court.
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:5, Informative)
If you have been paying attention you would know that the documents the telecoms need to show their actions were legal have been classified by the Bush administration as national security secretes.
That places the Telecoms in a position that they can't defend without breaking an entirely different law and the courts seeing the suits don't have the authority to grant immunity from prosecution which carries prison time. The administration went to court and explained this claiming that the documents were national security secrets which historically have caused the cases to be dismissed. A judge in CA said it wasn't good enough and the public had a right to see the contents of the orders. The administration has refused to declassify the documents because it would place national security at risk. It might be prudent to suggest that he is more likely protecting activities that might have been illegal and it has been claimed that the telecom suits were only an attempt at learning about those activities but all we have is face value in the reasoning stated at the moment.
In the end, we have an organization that isn't a government entity but works closely with the government in many aspects who isn't allowed a fair trial by default. It violates on the basic tenent of our legal system and people seem to be able to over look that if it allows them to get what they see as the bad guy. In this case, the bad guy is Bush and anyone he may have used in his actions.
If you look at the so called immunity bill, it doesn't actually provide immunity. It provides a means for the administration to certify if it presented orders or not and if they were legal or not. If they were legal and there was a court order, the case automatically gets dismissed. If they weren't followed through on or if they relied on the AG's authorizations, then it goes to a special court of abuse to determine if the government actually presented a legal looking document. If that is true, then the case get's dismissed. Under FISA, provisions allowed the AG to present authorizations without a court order given that one would be sought. It really isn't the Telecoms' fault if that follow through was never implemented because the follow through is after the fact.
Anyways, don't take this as some form of rebuttal. It isn't. It is a description of the events leading to the current situation which on itself leads to a little different light. The laws in place at the time provided a complete defense for the telecoms if they were presented with authentic authorization [cornell.edu] even if they weren't legal. This is mostely why a lot of the democrats are breaking ranks and voting for the immunity. Look at the bill itself. [loc.gov] I have to link that way because the links won't stay valid for long. Select the 1st entry then scroll down to the title II protections. Notice how it provides for the AG to certify it's actions without divulging information the would be considered top secrete or a national security "state secrete".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you have been paying attention you would know that the documents the telecoms need to show their actions were legal have been classified by the Bush administration as national security secretes.
I'm well aware of the complexities involved... as you obviously are as well.
If you look at the so called immunity bill, it doesn't actually provide immunity. It provides a means for the administration to certify if it presented orders or not and if they were legal or not.
But there's the rub... it's not a power of the executive (or legislative) branch to determine whether or not an activity was within the law. Between everything being secret, and the provisions of this bill on top of it all, they have effectively usurped that power from the judicial. It sure seems like effective immunity, if not explicit.
If they were legal and there was a court order, the case automatically gets dismissed. If they weren't followed through on or if they relied on the AG's authorizations, then it goes to a special court of abuse to determine if the government actually presented a legal looking document. If that is true, then the case get's dismissed. Under FISA, provisions allowed the AG to present authorizations without a court order given that one would be sought. It really isn't the Telecoms' fault if that follow through was never implemented because the follow through is after the fact.
Not being a lawyer, it's difficult to come to a complete understanding of the big pict
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:4, Insightful)
If the company complies with the government to do something illegal wether the government is ordering it or just requesting it doesn't matter, they should still be punished to the full extent of the law.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...if it was a request then I could understand not granting immunity. If it was demanded by the government, then it would be justifiable to grant them immunity.
"I was just following orders" is not a valid defense.
Of course the government is above the law...
I hope to god that was sarcasm.
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:5, Insightful)
Granted, that would need to be handled delicately, to say the least. But if someone were to come to me and say, "I need your help to rob a bank", I'd probably give the local police a heads-up. Why should it matter if they flashed a badge while making that request? (Except in that case I might give the FBI the heads-up instead.)
Are we a nation of laws or aren't we?
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:4, Insightful)
Are we a nation of laws or aren't we?
selectively, my friend; selectively.
I know that's not the answer you were looking for, but its an honest one. ;(
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, in this case it does. The law has always stated that the telecoms and their agents had a complete defense [cornell.edu] in any civil or criminal actions resulting from any law if the government or a law enforcement agency/officer presented the telecoms with documentation claiming their acts were legal. The FISA AG authorizations would have provided that independent of the AG's willingness to follow through on any other aspect of the law to keep it legal or not.
Of course, if the government didn't present the authority to do such taps to the telecoms, then they aren't covered. However, the current claim is that they would be but Bush classified the documents they need to prove the effect of the law which means they would be committing a felony if they defended their actions with the defenses provided by law. This has never really been about making the telecoms pay either. It has always been about gathering evidence on the administration which sort of seems like picking on the retarded neighbor kid in order to force his parents out of the house so someone else can rob them. Or at least that's how I see it.
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:4, Informative)
The law to which you link provides for this defense with a reference to Title 18 Part I Chapter 119 Section 2518 (7) [cornell.edu]. That allows for warrantless eavesdropping only when "an emergency situation exists," and requires that a court order must be presented within 48 hours of the start of interception. If the court order is not presented, the intercepted material is considered to have been obtained illegally and within 90 days the subject(s) of the eavesdropping must be notified that their communications were intercepted. (IANAL)
AFAIK, court orders were never obtained for these cases and the subjects were not notified of the interceptions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:5, Insightful)
The government did only request they comply. Some companies refused.
But even if the government ordered them to, so what?
If a policeman ordered you to rob a bank, do you think you deserve amnesty? It's against the law no matter who tells you to do it.
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course. Any action forced at gunpoint - or other threat of punishment from a force-wielding body - should be granted amnesty.
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course. Any action forced at gunpoint - or other threat of punishment from a force-wielding body - should be granted amnesty.
Then the telcos don't have anything to worry about when they plead their case in front of a court of law.
Mod parent up! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course. Any action forced at gunpoint - or other threat of punishment from a force-wielding body - should be granted amnesty.
If people do not choose to do the right thing, then we will only have the wrong thing.
You have a responsibility to do the right thing. It comes with the rights. What are the rights? The rights to spend the big gobs of cash that you get for ordering around the minimum wage peons below you.
"He told me to do it" is not an excuse. By the way, if a cop tells you to do something illegal, that is entrapment, and it is itself an illegal act. However, it is not necessarily a defense. You need to have some basic sani
Re: (Score:2)
You've concocted a particular hypothetical situation. So what? Why should we consider it archetypal? It is not. I can merely add my own modifications to your hypothetical which will destroy your conclusions. Let's say the person is forcing you at gun
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I think the only way I'd be willing to accept telecom immunity is if all those involved in issuing the requests were prosecuted for it. Of course, that'll never happen...
Re: (Score:2)
If he really "ordered" you to do it, that's called entrapment.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing for the sake of analogy the OP isn't implying that the cop then arrests you. The cop isn't interested in catching a bank robber he created, but robbing the bank, and he orders you to help him.
If they were forced to comply, or were convinced by a reliable source that the action was not illegal, they don't need amnesty -- they'd have a hard time being prosecuted.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Your confusing two separate activities there. First, the wiretaps and then the refusals to provide access. The law, passed in 1994 says that the telecom providers must use certain equipment and make or provide access to the equipment. Bush attempted to use that to build data centers where bundles of lines passed through making tapping an entire region from one location a reality. It was to avoid having to send field agents to 200 different locations in order to effect a 2 minute tap. The law provides an out
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You have to remember that this isn't about rational or legal order of events. It is about getting shorty. You see, when the president classified everything about the NSA program that wasn't already classified, the attention went to the telecoms because existing law gave the telecoms immunity if they were presented with legal documents. They expected that the telecoms would violate a completely unrelated law about disclosing national security secretes and classified information. But as it turns out, they are
Re: (Score:2)
s/2/0/; #There, fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
What looks like happened is they followed the law but because it would require that classified information be released to prove thier innocense the government wants to give them immunity.
That explaination looks to be the case because you have a whole lot of people who have seen the classified information wanting pushing for the immunity. You have people on both sides such as Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) head of the Senate Intelligence committee who activly
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:3, Informative)
Because anyone who wasn't Bogarting joints in civics class knows that the Executive branch (not "the government") has the authority to enforce the laws that are created by various levels of legislature. The Executive is not a king, does not have the authority to tell anyone to break any law for any reason, and it does not become legal when the President does it [landmarkcases.org].
Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse for We, the People, so why should it be an excuse for telecos who have legions of lawyers on hand to advise
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:3, Insightful)
The telecoms are private companies. The government has no right to "order" private citizens to do anything against their will without due process of law (read: JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT).
The government didn't do this legally, the telecoms' legal departments knew damn well, and so did their corporate officers.
They willingly engaged in criminal conspiracy against the American populace, and the only way to make them think twice before sleeping with sugar-daddy government is to hit them where they'll notice it: their
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then they should be brought to justice.
We need more pressure (Score:3, Interesting)
The trouble is that we have a choice between the Republicans who want amnesty and the Democrats who are afraid not to grant it. What kind of pressure can we bring?
Obama has an amazing ability to raise money from small donors. If the donors went on strike, Obama would react.
Enough of us have to tell the Democrats that we won't donate if amnesty passes but we might donate if it doesn't. The pressure from his supporters has forced Obama to react by telling us to suck it up. More pressure might force him to change the way he intends to vote.
Re: (Score:2)
"Obama has an amazing ability to raise money from small donors. If the donors went on strike, Obama would react."
That has about as much chance of happening as, say, Congress voting against the immunity to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone else suggested (here on /.) that a bill like this would come to fruition so that neither Obama, nor McCain, have to vote on this bill.
Pre-emptive Godwin (Score:5, Interesting)
Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.
Hm. Committed nationalist militants working in collaboration with "traditional elites", such as large telcos.
Discuss.
Re: (Score:2)
large telcos, Hollywood, Big Oil, Big Pharma...I'm sure I'm missing some. Thanks for raising that point and risking the wrath of the mods. I'd have modded you up but my points just expired.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Devil's side. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why we need to limit Congress to one term in each office. Nothing gets in the way of principle like rational self-interest.
I agree. However, if someone knows that they'll have only one term, what's to prevent them from having a 'slash and burn mentality'?
Politician thinking: ''Hey, I'm here for only one term. What not vote for FISA bill because I'm for it and I believe that 'if you don't do anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.' And besides, regarding the folks who wrote in against this, fuck'em! What are they going to do? Not vote for me next time?!? Hahahahahah!''
Politicians: Damn them! Damn them all to hell!
Re:On a side note (Score:5, Funny)
Re:On a side note (Score:5, Funny)
Can't we just make it so if their popularity goes below a certain amount that an ejection seat in congress launches them somewhere out over the Atlantic?
Well as soon as that happened, in the very next poll everyone would express disapproval of their representatives, not because they actually disapproved but simply to see the spectacle of a few hundred politicians launched out of the capitol into the ocean.
The next batch of politicians that are elected would, too, find themselves immediately disapproved of and launched into the ocean.
Soon, due to the power vacuum, it would be necessary to hold elections every day, as on the start of the next day they'd all be launched into the ocean. Crowds would form around the Capitol Building and it would be D.C.'s top tourist attraction.
Pretty quickly the Capitol Building would become known as the Politician Suicide Booth, and the country would soon be rid of all politicians crazy enough to actually seek election, and the seats would remain empty.
So yeah, this is pretty much the perfect idea. We can call it the Linzeal Solution if you want.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds good to me! (Score:2)
That would make a GREAT 'reality' TV show! I'm all for it. If that would come to pass, I might even be tempted to watch TV again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why we need to limit Congress to one term in each office.
Oh please! What has term limits done for the presidency? You only need to look as far as Mexico to see what a worthless endeavor it would be. It does nothing about removing the party from power. You limit their terms with your vote. If you won't vote them out, then you're not seeing the real problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:On a side note (Score:5, Interesting)
I advocate mid-term votes on each of your congresscritters, with ballots such as that below (for each):
I think congressperson X:
Get the people really involved!
Re: (Score:2)
6. By me.
The ultimate in involvement. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
I initially read #4 as "cut and disemboweled", and thought it was a rather savvy idea.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why we need to limit Congress to one term in each office. Nothing gets in the way of principle like rational self-interest.
Given how the sen's and rep's are acting these days, I whole-heartedly agree. There was a time in this country when having no limits was a good thing, back when advanced education was not wide-spread, or the communication network as the speed of a horse. But now, our society as a whole is more educated -- despite the acts of stupidity we still witness, I still believe this. But, what exactly are the odds of getting the very people who would be victim of the new standard, passing the new standard of 1 ter
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Because we want to limit the people who can run for Congress to be those that can drop their lifelong job or career, spend a year running for office, then hold office for two years, then do ........ ?
How many people in what jobs can afford to quit and run for Congress? That's already limited enough, mostly to lawyers, rich people, and the rich-married. Then how many of those people could ever, ever get work again in their original field? Do you think an electrical engineer would find a job again
Re: (Score:2)
This is why we need to limit Congress to one term in each office. Nothing gets in the way of principle like rational self-interest.
They have to live under the same shitty laws we do.
So who says their self interest is entirely rational?
But then again, since 1/6th of all Blue Dog Democrats (according to Wikipedia) later joined the Republican party, there's always the possibility that they don't really have a problem with no transparency or accountability for the Telco's actions.
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO Something more like "10 years per lifetime in any public office". Possibly also combined with only allowing someone who does not hold any public office to be nominated except if they are seeking reelection to exactly the same position. The latter would mean that a US Senator wanting to be US President would have to resign, as a Senator, first.
Term limits are for fools (Score:2)
Term limits transfer power to those who are not bound by the limits.
The party leader. The president -for-life. The permanent state bureaucracy. The general. The diplomat. The lobbyist. The judge.
These are the only people who can maintain continuity in government. Develop expertise. Draft legislation. Contemplate long-term solutions.
They have staff. They have funding.
They
Cowards, or do they really believe (Score:5, Interesting)
The standard narrative for Dem caving is that they fear for their electability or whatever. It's also possible that they just believe what they vote for. [openleft.com]
What About the Victims? (Score:4, Informative)
What they are doing by enacting this amnesty is denying the victims of the illegal wiretapping any recourse. Essentially anyone who used international circuits to transmit confidential or proprietary information had that information compromised and therefore devalued. I seem to recall back in the 70s the Soviets used much less detailed information on telecommunications related to commodity trading to buy an enormous amount of US wheat at an extremely low price.
Recourse from whom? (Score:4, Insightful)
Who should these victims be getting recourse from? The government officials who made the illegitimate requests? Or the companies that perhaps ought to have stood up for their customers, but were scared of retaliation by the government?
If Immunity Passes (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
we, as citizens, should also so this. we should BURN all our records and basically play the same game the gov does.
the gov sets the standard for the country. even though it sounds absurd, they ARE our leaders and they ARE setting an example (like it or not) for our kids and the next generation.
what kind of US are we creating? how 'ethical' will our kids be since they are watching this TREASONOUS act by our president and taking it all in.
lessons:
- the US is an untrustworthy nation. it lies, steals, cheat
FISA isn't that important (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush is unwilling to sign FISA without telecom immunity and has actually pocket-vetoed the same bill before because it lacked that immunity.
And yet Bush and most Republicans cry out that FISA is absolutely vital to protecting our country.
This leads us to one of two possibilities:
1) Bush feels that protecting the telecoms are more important than protecting the country, since he is willing to let us go without a revised FISA bill unless we give the telecoms what thy want.
2) The FISA bill is not actually that important for national security, but is more or less a trojan horse for covering their collective asses.
I suppose both are possible, and not mutually exclusive, but faced with this choice I find it far to unsettling that Bush would literally put our whole country at risk (as he himself claims FISA is that important) for the sake of a few dozen CEOs.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
What do they call it when someone limits the choices in order to prove a point? Umm.. I know fallacy is part of it.. But what type of fallacy? What is it when someone presents a fallacious argument in order to bend logic in his favor? I don't remember the type of fallacy your presenting here but make no mistake it is a fallacy.
How about another option,
3: Bush doesn't see effective wiretapping ever being possible if the telecoms have to comb over every and make I to make sure it is crossed or dotted properly
Re:FISA isn't that important (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush is unwilling to sign FISA without telecom immunity and has actually pocket-vetoed the same bill before because it lacked that immunity.
And yet Bush and most Republicans cry out that FISA is absolutely vital to protecting our country.
Yeah, that's Bush's basic stick-and-another-stick method of forcing Congressional capitulation.
First, make it a huge patriotism/national security/support our troops issue. Congressional Democrats have to pass the bill, or it will mean that they are unpatriotic/pro-terrorist/anti-troops, and oh noes there's an election cycle coming up!
Second, make the side-issue that Bush wants a requirement in order to avoid his veto. Democrats can't get past the veto, so in order to pass the bill that they must pass in order to not be pro-terrorist, they have to cave on the side-issue.
The sad part is that all they have to do to get around this farcical "This bill is vital to the country! But I'll veto it without this unnecessary addendum..." bullshit is simply stand up to it. All they have to do is say "Yes, this bill IS vital to the country, but we will not pass it with the addendum, and thus your veto is hurting the country!" All it would take is a little spine, and the shoe would be on the other foot. They could end the Iraq war any time they wanted simply by refusing to pass a funding bill that didn't include timetables for withdrawal. Let Bush veto it. No funding, no war, the troops come home, and the majority of Americans are happier.
The even sadder part is that the only thing lower that Bush's approval ratings are those of the newly elected Democrats, so you'd think they'd have realized that we want them to do this and are pissed with them for not doing it. They keep caving in before lame "Eat this turd sandwich or you're not a patriot!" trick, seemingly oblivious to the fact that the people who voted them in don't think that way. Stop eating turd sandwiches! It's disgusting, not patriotic!
Not that I'm in any way convinced that it is a universal lack of spine that's causing this behavior; I'm not sure they really don't like the taste and their reluctance isn't just an act. Cowardice is competing with greed, corruption, lack of scruples, and other common political vices as possible explanations that probably vary from seat to seat.
Thank God for people like Feingold, though, for demonstrating what a principled politician looks like.
Obamamania not so loud now, huh? (Score:5, Informative)
.
"A Vote for Change" my ass.
Perhaps not so loud... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this amnesty bill has done more to show Barack Obama's TRUE colors than any other vote in his career.
... but looking at the other votes in his career [aclu.org] compared to the alternative [aclu.org] would still be wise.
Yes, its the ACLU and everyone seems to hate them... just #include <spinfilter.h> when reading the links.
He has turned (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Here's the response from Obamas representatives when I sent a message to him last week regarding the amnesty bill:
Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority
But again... (Score:3, Insightful)
Delaying tactic (Score:2)
Five minutes is all it would take (Score:2)
If ever there was a time to put on a pair of rubber gloves, hold your nose, and actually contact the lying scumbag who calls him/herself your Congressman or Senator, now is the time. The misbegotten, money-grubbing, opportunistic corporate blowboys will do what's right ONLY in one situation: they're so afraid their constituents will kick their sorry asses out of office that they don't dare touch the campaign money, free trips and other forms of legalized bribery that the telcoms are offering.
If ever th
Re:Law,Transparency and Accountability out the win (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not to say the US couldn't use a lot more transparency and accountability, but I hardly think the UN should be dictating the gold standard to anybody.
What is the UN? (Score:5, Interesting)
The UN is nothing but the sum of its members.
And the US have been largely responsible for castrating it. Look at the use of veto in the UNSC in the past 30 years. Even USSR did not fuck it up that much.
Re: (Score:2)
Step 1 should also include spare barrels, as there's going to be a lot of wear and tear on them due to all the necessary shooting.
Also, step 8 is hookers.