backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 86 comment(s) - last by phxfreddy.. on Mar 18 at 11:45 PM
Congress defies Bush Administration after a late night-secret session

The House of Representatives voted today to pass a key foreign surveillance bill that refuses amnesty to telcos for helping the government conduct warrantless wiretaps.

The bill, known formally as the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (H.R. 3773), replaces an emergency piece of legislation that expired last month, and it installs a number of new limits on how the country can conduct surveillance against foreign nations and citizens on and off American soil. The bill passed this morning by a thin majority – 213 to 197 – after the Bush Administration called the first secret house debate in a quarter century to discuss its merits last night.

H.R. 3773 turned into one of the central battlegrounds in the ongoing debate on whether or not to give telecommunications companies retroactive immunity for assisting intelligence agencies that served them with warrantless wiretap requests, with the current administration demanding amnesty.

Adamant about shielding telcos from liabilities resulting from what the President views as valuable assistance, the Bush Administration maintained it will veto any spy bill that doesn’t meet its requirements, including H.R. 3773. Since the bill passed by such a close margin, it won’t have enough votes to override a presidential veto.

H.R. 3773’s passage is a “significant step backward in defending our country against terrorism,” said White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto.

The Administration’s favor has instead been directed at a similar Senate bill, passed last month, which grants telcos immunity and provides far more expansive powers. Both the Senate and House versions of the bill are now slated for combination – mainly to resolve the two versions’ differences – and then head for President Bush’s desk.

“The good news is that the House bill will be dead on arrival in the Senate and, in any event, would be vetoed by the President if it ever got to his desk,” said Fratto.

Democratic representative Jerrold Nalder of New York accused the Bush Administration of fear-mongering. “It is time to reject the scare tactics of the Bush administration and enact this carefully crafted legislation,” he said.

Senate Judiciary Committee chair Patrick Leahy calls the House bill an improvement over the Senate version, and condemned the Bush Administration for thwarting compromise. “Unfortunately, congressional Republicans and the administration have refused to engage in meaningful discussions or negotiations about the legislation,” said Leahy. “The White House has tried, again, to treat Congress like a rubber stamp.”

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Good for the House
By phisrow on 3/15/2008 1:30:29 PM , Rating: 1
That said, I can hardly believe that this is even a matter of debate. How have we come to a point where the question: "Should we grant retroactive immunity to criminals?" is seen as worth debating?




RE: Good for the House
By rninneman on 3/15/2008 1:57:23 PM , Rating: 2
You're missing what the debate is about. The Democrats are trying to call the telcos criminal. (After all, they are part of corporate America which is completely evil to begin with.)

The Republicans believe they deserve immunity because they were asked to help the government with wiretapping foreign communications not protected by the 5th amendment. This had nothing to do with wiretapping your phone conversations with you mom.


RE: Good for the House
By smitty3268 on 3/15/2008 2:55:49 PM , Rating: 2
I think you've got that backwards, there. It isn't the democrats who were insisting to put in a section of the law that says the telcos are criminals. It was actually the Bush administration who insisted on putting in a section that said no matter what the telcos previously did, they were making it not criminal. All the House has done is refuse to add something that Bush wanted, and said that if anyone has broken the law they shouldn't be let off the hook.


RE: Good for the House
By DRMichael on 3/15/2008 4:15:52 PM , Rating: 5
Try thinking logically for a second and without letting your unfiltered hatred for Bush to interfere: The reason for immunity is the government cannot divulge in a civil suit the classified nature of the foreign surveillance. This would mean when Mr. Sammy Socialist files a suit claiming AT&T violated his privacy on an incoming international call from Mr. Al Qaeda, the Feds are not coming to the rescue of AT&T to say “Well you see Your Honor, we had knowledge from an inside operative by the name of Agent Dead Manwalking that Mr. Al Qaeda is planning attacks”.

This entire topic is nothing more than Democrat Talking Points. There is oversight just as before. The difference is the amount of time needed to obtain warrants. Additionally, ask yourself why the Democrat controlled Senate passed a bill (68 – 29) that allowed immunity back in February.


RE: Good for the House
By rninneman on 3/15/2008 4:19:16 PM , Rating: 2
Very well said. You deserve a +6.


RE: Good for the House
By RogueLegend on 3/16/2008 4:13:49 AM , Rating: 2
You know, you should give the logical thoughts a try yourself. If you would think without letting your favoritism of Bush for a moment, you would realize that Mr. Al Qaeda isn't going to use obvious means of communication (especially over American telephone lines) to relay attack plans.

Furthermore, this was never JUST an issue of surveillance on foreign communications- there's plenty of evidence pointing to the fact that they were monitoring domestic communication as well.

This entire topic has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans or even socialism (relating issues like this to socialism is one of the most brain dead arguments I ever heard from republican supporters). This has everything to do with American citizenship.

Privacy was NEVER a hallmark of socialist ideals. Socialism was more about economics if anything. But if you look at the way socialism was practiced, do you see anyone's privacy being protected? Answer that question before you respond to anything else.

Privacy was always an American democratic ideal. So the person you're accusing of being a socialist is suing to uphold his democratic ideals? You people twist language and ideas in interesting ways to fit your view of the world.

Further, Sammy is not a socialist. Remember Uncle Sam, the personification of America's identity???

This just shows how skewed your views are at a fundamental level.

What is most ironic here is that the Fed is using the telcos to violate our privacy- yet they use the priviledge of state secrets (yet another form of privacy) to protect themselves from presenting evidence in cases involving so called enemies of the state. I'm sorry, there's only so much hypocrisy that many in the American public can take before they fight back.

Yes a Democratic controlled Senate passed the bill, but if you paid any attention, most Democrats at the time were not at all happy with the way their friends voted. Obama happened to be one of those Dems who rejected it. There's a few reasons why the Democrats voted the way they did on that bill, none of them good ones, but I'm not going to start a whole secondary debate on this.

My main point is that this is not party issue, nor is an issue of socialism. Libertarians thankfully understand this. Bush is only bringing America closer to socialism by spying on its citizens and handing the telcos immunity after the fact. In fact, it sounds exactly like the kind of stuff that happened in the former Soviet Union. What's funny about this, he's trying to get it done at the end of his Administration. And yet, all the Republicans were pissed about Clintons pardons....


RE: Good for the House
By DRMichael on 3/16/2008 9:39:42 AM , Rating: 5
Wow…you’re reading way too much into it, but if it makes you feel smart then good for you.
Let’s analyze your criticism, shall we? And I’ll attempt to stay above the fray by not speaking like a bigot i.e. “You people twist language and ideas in interesting ways to fit your view of the world”
quote:
you would realize that Mr. Al Qaeda isn't going to use obvious means of communication (especially over American telephone lines)

So just because you believe this, the government should not utilize FISA laws to monitor incoming calls from suspected terrorists? This is an invalid argument which neither I nor, I suspect, the American public would accept as a prudent step in defense of the homeland.
quote:
there's plenty of evidence pointing to the fact that they were monitoring domestic communication as well.

Really, if you have that evidence the ACLU would love to talk to you. You see, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled last July that they had no legal standing because they could not prove they had been targeted by the program. Additionally, the Supreme Court denied the appeal this last February.
quote:
There's a few reasons why the Democrats voted the way they did on that bill, none of them good ones, but I'm not going to start a whole secondary debate on this.

Secondary debate? This is the part of the post where it’s obvious that you are in denial. Please elaborate as to why on the one hand the Democrat controlled Senate voted to allow immunity for the Telco’s and on the other hand the DNC’s talking points are quite the opposite?
Listen, I understand you are simply repeating what you have read from some blog or have been told. However, it would serve you well to conduct your own research so that you have a CLEAR understanding of what it is you are talking about. The 1978 FISA ACT was amended by the Patriot Act. The current legislation passed by the Senate but amended by the House can be found here: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c110query.html Search by Bill Number HR3773

Once you’ve read it, come back and make your arguments; I would be happy to discuss it.


RE: Good for the House
By RogueLegend on 3/16/08, Rating: 0
RE: Good for the House
By RogueLegend on 3/16/2008 4:03:20 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, meant to say "the government is monitoring domestic communication". I was a bit fast on the post button.


RE: Good for the House
By DRMichael on 3/16/2008 6:40:32 PM , Rating: 5
I don’t really follow what you’re attempting to get across here. Let me state this as clearly as I can: As of now there is NO EVIDENCE of domestic spying. The ACLU brought a case before the court without substantiating evidence that domestic spying has occurred and the court dismissed their complaint.
quote:
Yeah, the "blogs" I've been reading are the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Washington Post. Feel free to look over these "blogs."


I looked at your sources and let me quote:
He (Mark Klein) alleged that the NSA set up a system that vacuumed up Internet and phone-call data from ordinary Americans with the cooperation of AT&T.
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

This would seem to suggest that there might be some evidence to support your claim that there is domestic spying taking place. However, nowhere in Mr. Klein’s allegations did he say he was privy to what the NSA set up other than a ‘secret room’ with a ‘splitter’ that “was sweeping up everything”. While this makes for great newspaper headlines, it is far from knowing exactly how the information was being used. Your assumption is that the NSA is domestically spying.

However, in another source you suggested, I found the following:
The NSA "strictly follows laws and regulations designed to preserve every American's privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution," agency spokeswoman Judith Emmel said in a statement …
Source: http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB12051...

This would seem to dispute your assumption that the NSA is conducting domestic spying.
So here we are; he said – she said. As I stated before: There is no evidence that domestic spying is taking place.

As for the other comments you made: "you are obviously not interested in discussing anything. Your points are faulty at best, and you draw incorrect conclusions from the evidence you present."

You have no evidence of domestic spying other than hearsay. This is tantamount to saying you’ve seen Bigfoot, but have no conclusive evidence to substantiate your claim. Therefore it is you who have failed in your argument.


RE: Good for the House
By CarsonM on 3/16/2008 7:47:25 PM , Rating: 2
Awesome post DRMichael! But your probably waisting your time with this one.

As the Captain said in 'Cool Hand Luke' - "Some people you just can't reach"


RE: Good for the House
By Ringold on 3/16/2008 4:26:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Al Qaeda isn't going to use obvious means of communication (especially over American telephone lines) to relay attack plans.


I stopped reading right there, since you got that one entirely wrong. They do utilize phones, and they do utilize e-mail. Whether or not they come right out and say "The bomb will be at the corner of 1st & 23rd at 2:31pm" is a different issue. Have you even read in to the issue in the slightest? How do you think they communicate, carrier pigeons?!


RE: Good for the House
By phxfreddy on 3/18/2008 11:45:46 PM , Rating: 2
Why are cat lovers and femmy guys always democrat? Can you tell us? You certainly have first hand knowledge......


RE: Good for the House
By theapparition on 3/17/2008 7:24:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That said, I can hardly believe that this is even a matter of debate. How have we come to a point where the question: "Should we grant retroactive immunity to criminals?" is seen as worth debating?

Seems to be status quo for illegal immigration though, not that it's right either.......


This just boggles the mind
By theeq on 3/16/2008 12:24:16 AM , Rating: 3
This is something I just can't seem to understand. As a note, my political views are very liberal, but I'm going to ask you to completely ignore that for the time being. What I can't seem to understand is when did my country become such a shouting match? I'm not particularly old, but even I can remember a day when people wouldn't sling around slogans like "Sammy Socialist" and "Ignorant Cattle" and actually give an opposing viewpoint a chance. Folks talk about "applying logic" or "opening their eyes" or whatever phrase of the day it is, but what they really seem to be saying, at least to me, is "look at this from my point of view only." I'm sorry, but America was built on conflicting ideas and both sides of the fence need to recognize this. That's right, both sides. I am sick and tired of right wing accusations of "terrorist loving" - honestly, you really think we love the people who actively attack our home? - and left wingers accusing anyone they don't like as a fascist. Look at the political debates these days. No politician is prepared to say anything anti-war because they will instantly be branded as a pinko freedom hater. On the flip side, liberals will demonize any little phrase they dislike with equal gusto. I personally find very little logic in most of the things the Bush administration has done and will be glad when it is over. However, when I see some new policy or idea come from our present administration, I do my very best not to immediately dismiss it as idiotic drivel and consider it in relation to what is best for the country. Not my personal beliefs, not my agenda, not what mommy and daddy or the news tells me, but what I honestly believe would be better for the country. Do I think a ban on assault weapons would be good for the country? Yes. Do I think lower taxes are good? Yes. Do I agree with Bush's tax cuts? No, but instead of complaining, I try to think of ways they can be changed to help the american people as a whole and then write to my legislators. Issues are never, ever, simple right and wrong answers and I encourage anyone who truly thinks that to ponder over that viewpoint.

As to the issue at hand, I think both sides have very valid points. No, the Telcos should not get away with breaking laws. Yes, they were presumably doing their country a service and should be recognized. But as I understand, this has gone from civic duty to profit making machine. Once it was established that there weren't hundreds of even slightly useful phone calls being pulled every day or week, even, I would think that warrants and proper legal process would be entered into the equation though. And to head off someone trying to snipe me here, no I don't know for sure there weren't tons of useful calls being farmed. But at the same time, I have developed this opinion over several months of research and news stories with no real information to the opposite. If someone can present me with evidence to the contrary, I will be more than happy to incorporate it into my understanding and viewpoint.




RE: This just boggles the mind
By DRMichael on 3/16/2008 10:47:25 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
this has gone from civic duty to profit making machine

Please elaborate.
quote:
no I don't know for sure there weren't tons of useful calls being farmed. But at the same time, I have developed this opinion over several months of research and news stories with no real information to the opposite. If someone can present me with evidence to the contrary, I will be more than happy to incorporate it into my understanding and viewpoint.

So you’ve formed an opinion based on no proof either way? I would conclude, as did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth District, that without proof it would not be appropriate to bring an accusation of wrongdoing.


RE: This just boggles the mind
By Edjren on 3/16/2008 3:11:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would conclude, as did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth District, that without proof it would not be appropriate to bring an accusation of wrongdoing.

Here, I believe DRMichael, you have hit upon the crux of the issue. Many individuals, civil organizations and members of congress believe that the Bush administration has engaged in illegal activity in the past, but thus far they have been unable to obtain the proof necessary to make a legitimate accusation: witnesses claim executive privilege and refuse to testify, documents are classified or made unavailable, thousands of email communications vanish and so forth. What then can be done when the people you suspect of wrongdoing have absolute control over the proof that you need in order to make a proper accusation?

Apparently, you can shift the battle to a new arena. Make no mistake, the primary goal of the telecom lawsuits isn't money for the plaintiffs: it's access to information that would constitute proof that the Bush administration has acted illegally.

If these trials proceed, the telecoms will be compelled by oath to truthfully describe the actions that the Bush administration required that they take. And if these actions testified to are determined to be illegal, then those who have long sought proof that the Bush administration has acted illegally will finally have it.

And once they possess the proof, then they will move forward and make their accusations.


RE: This just boggles the mind
By DRMichael on 3/16/2008 9:05:48 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
What then can be done when the people you suspect of wrongdoing have absolute control over the proof that you need in order to make a proper accusation?

I understand your concern and you bring up a valid point; if you can’t get information as to what the NSA is doing, how do we know they aren’t spying on domestic communications? This is the primary reason for the lawsuits that are trying to make their way through the courts now. People are concerned that the government is spying on them.

However, there is one thing that is being overlooked, and this is a very important point: There has yet to be one known violation of privacy since the NSA started their new surveillance. Does this prove that the government is not spying on all communications, internationally and domestically? No. However, let us assume for the moment that the NSA monitors every communication within the United States. If this were so, then you would have to believe that at some point within the last six years a communication of a criminal activity, although not terroristic, would have been picked up. If so, the NSA would have no authority to contact local police or intervene in any way. In the event that the NSA did contact local authorities, the prosecutor would have to show the chain of events that led to the apprehension of the criminal(s). This is why I believe the entire argument of the notion that the government is spying domestically is a moot point.

I hope I made my point comprehensible; it’s a little late in the day for me, but you proposed a good question.


RE: This just boggles the mind
By Edjren on 3/17/2008 2:30:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In the event that the NSA did contact local authorities, the prosecutor would have to show the chain of events that led to the apprehension of the criminal(s). This is why I believe the entire argument of the notion that the government is spying domestically is a moot point.

If an individual or group is unscrupulous enough to stoop to spying on presumably innocent people, I doubt that minor procedural points would prove to be much of an obstacle.

In most instances, it would be entirely practical to make an anonymous tip or quietly work through channels in order to get a case up and running. With this accomplished, a warrant could be ordered and the data previously collected could then be brought forth as evidence. If the target is demonstrably guilty, as indicated by the data being used against him, people will focus on the guilt and disregard any allegations of a conspiracy - even if a conspiracy did in fact exist.

The recent Eliot Spitzer debacle is a good example of what I'm talking about. In Spitzer's case, the evidence that proved his guilt was comprised primarily of data: telephone and bank records specifically. As the story goes, a bank program threw up a 'red flag' which led the bank to contact the federal government. The Feds then obtained warrants that allowed them to gather the telephone and bank records that ultimately proved Spitzer's guilt. And as a result, the Governor's career is destroyed and he resigns in disgrace.

The linchpin of this procedural narrative is the computer which throws up the 'red flag'. Without this computer and it's red flag, there is no Federal involvement and there are no warrants. Now, to be honest with you, I'd never heard of red flag throwing computers before the Spitzer case, and I'm still not certain why his relatively small transactions tripped this computer while billions of other transactions didn't. I mean, what are the odds? But really, I don't spend much time thinking about it because the man was obviously guilty.

So, do I think that it's possible that Spitzer could have been targeted by people with access to his private data and an ax to grind? Absolutely. Technically, if you have access to incriminating data, it becomes possible. But I'm not going to waste my time constructing conspiracy theories in defense of a man who has already admitted that he is guilty. I'd sound like a nut.

Yet given these possibilities, I cannot share your faith in the protections of procedure. Procedures can be circumvented if one has the power and the will to do so. Ultimately, I fear that we would be forced to put our faith in the personal character of those who controlled the data, if the allegations regarding domestic data mining turn out, in fact, to be true.


RE: This just boggles the mind
By Ringold on 3/16/2008 4:52:52 PM , Rating: 2
I'll just respond to the idea that this is somehow a new or novel situation in American politics, with two sides deeply entrenched and of fundamentally different minds than the other. Much of the time from 1800 to 1865, there were the liberal northern Republican's and the conservative southern Democrat parties, and while the Democrats I believe were a national party for a time by the time the Civil War came about they, like the Republican's, were largely a regional party.

Just like today, actually, except the roles have reversed. "Red states" is used instead of "slave states" and "blue states" is used instead of "free-soil" states.

Many of the surviving founding fathers predicted in the early 1800s that the divergence in thought, culture and economics between North and South would ultimately lead to disunion. To put it all in a nut shell, the South believed the constitution gave the states more sovereign rights than the North did; ultimately, as you know, the South decided to exercise the right to leave the union. The North failed to offer accomodations necessary for them to rejoin peacefully, and in the following 5 years 600,000 were killed over the issue of states rights (not slavery), with the liberal fascist Lincoln (who treated the constitution as though it were all optional) being the ultimate victor. States rights, and some degree of individual liberty, died on April 9, 1865 at a courthouse in Virginia. That didn't end the divide between North and South, it simply crushed the South, and with Lee's surrender they accepted that they had lost the war.

So you see, this left-right divide is nothing new. The Civil War was essentially caused by the South maintaining the approximate culture it had in 1776 and the North growing more liberal. Today, the issues are much the same; Republican's, a few like Bush aside, still kneel at the altar of Reagan, while liberals grow fundamentally more liberal decade by decade -- point in case being NAFTA, supported a decade ago but now trade negotiators visit our country and talk about how the mood coming from Democrats borders on xenophobia, worse then they had ever seen in their careers.

This wont end in civil war, though. Conservatives, I figure, will just slowly be bred out of existance, brainwashed by liberal government schools and ivory tower professors in universities. We'll be a fringe element of the Republican party, just like the equivalent people in the UK have become a small fringe element of their own.


By theapparition on 3/17/2008 7:39:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not particularly old, but even I can remember a day when people wouldn't sling around slogans like "Sammy Socialist" and "Ignorant Cattle" and actually give an opposing viewpoint a chance.

Perhaps you should read more up on your history. Slavery and rights issues were so polarizing that it literally plunged the country into civil war. Or how about the communist inquiries of the 50's where any opposing viewpoints were basically made criminal.

No, this country has enjoyed more freedom than any other country in the world, but there has always been passioned debate, and it will continue. The problem is countries that don't have the debate........they are the ones that don't have freedom. So be glad you can legally sling around the insults.


Nice
By pauldovi on 3/14/2008 8:05:39 PM , Rating: 5
I am actually impressed with Congress for once :)

Shame they didn't pass that no Earmarks Bill.

Too bad the President forgot what it meant to be a Republican.




RE: Nice
By Ringold on 3/14/2008 8:36:30 PM , Rating: 2
I agree on the earmarks bill. Come November, that should be used against any that voted against it, Republican or Democrat. It only got 27 votes, shame on the other 73. :\


RE: Nice
By smitty3268 on 3/14/2008 10:56:30 PM , Rating: 2
There's something about the Democrats actually growing some balls that just seems wrong. What's next, DNF being released?


RE: Nice
By Polynikes on 3/15/2008 11:30:20 AM , Rating: 2
I really enjoy seeing our checks and balances in action.


Two points
By tarpon on 3/15/2008 1:33:29 PM , Rating: 2
Did anyone expect Democrats to give up their kickbacks from the trial lawyers?

Never have understood how spying on terrorists endangered the rights of Americans.

Extra credit, I do understand how gun bans and government mandated healthcare intrudes on the rights of Americans -- call me old fashioned.




RE: Two points
By SiliconAddict on 3/15/2008 2:47:25 PM , Rating: 2
Not old fashioned. Just amazingly ignorant; which seems to be the going trend for the American public who are about as placated as cattle.


RE: Two points
By DRMichael on 3/15/2008 4:47:52 PM , Rating: 3
Have you read the changes to the 1978 FISA Act that were implemented by the Patriot Act? I have - I see nothing wrong with the changes. But please, enlighten; with what do you disagree?


What it boils down to.
By mindless1 on 3/15/2008 12:08:45 AM , Rating: 2
If we let fear of terrorists continue to erode our freedoms, soon enough we won't have any worth defending and they might as well have won this war on terror. If only we could turn back time, erase the Bush administration's effect.




RE: What it boils down to.
By Ringold on 3/15/2008 2:44:27 AM , Rating: 2
I think the same thing about Carter all the time. Life aint fair, is it? :P


RE: What it boils down to.
By rninneman on 3/15/08, Rating: 0
RE: What it boils down to.
By rninneman on 3/15/2008 1:31:34 PM , Rating: 2
What freedoms have you lost since Bush took office?


Veto? Of course he will.
By Reignfyre on 3/14/2008 8:39:43 PM , Rating: 2
Whether or not it IS a “significant step backward in defending our country against terrorism” debatable; it is however a significant blow the ability of unscrupulous politicos to suppress our freedoms for their ever fattening pocket books. So, yes, there is NO DOUBT that Shrub will veto the bill when/if it reaches him. It is in the best interest of the corporations that own him.




What about the internet?
By hitman699 on 3/15/2008 8:30:52 PM , Rating: 2
ok. the wiretaps are bad enough.. I tend to vote republican.. this is not in my opinion a party issue. The fact is there is laws that are in place to protect freedom. because a couple dozen psycho's crashed some planes does not all the sudden give the govt open access to everyones lives. If there is not a court that can hear "states secret" cases then there should be.. not giving the telcos immunity.. They know very well the FISA laws... no where does it say unless the govt makes a "special" request of you. and certainly not for the next several years after the event...lastly.. everyone should be concerned about the fact all the internet traffic thru att.. crazy terrorist or just avergage joe is spliced into an NSA room. again...infringing on everyone and giving the terrorist exactly what they want...because a bunch of nuts in a cave actually managed to complete a relativly simple plan...Its rediculous. Im pro government on just about everything.. but not snooping on americans without a warrent... especially in light of the fact the FBI inspector general said they have been abusing thier powers... national security letters are just as scary In my opinion..




Do you belive? I don't.
By ObiWanCeleri on 3/15/2008 11:56:03 PM , Rating: 2
This all depends on whether or not you believe all this babble about terrorism. Most of the foiled terrorist attempts are, at best, laughable while those that succeeded are so laden with conflicting evidence that most people are still wondering what happened. That’s not considering the fact that there is so little to show, even after 7 years of permanent “eminent attacks”. Where’s the beef? It seems as though we’re all eating tofu.

The other part of the terrorist equation is all about definition. If we stick to the true definition of the term then Shock and Awe was a terrorist endeavor. But wait! The US killed and maimed thousands for the good cause so it doesn’t count. But take those tree huggers and all those Muslim and all those who don’t agree with that vision for a new century. They’re all terrorist supreme – when they forget to bring a book back to the library or when they freak out at a checkpoint because their wife is about to give birth, they do it with the foulest of intent.

The other weird thing about terrorism is that it only happens when we send armed people into countries that didn’t ask for it. I wonder why. There’s no double standard here; no one can touch the US (hard enough to be a critic) but the US can just about bomb anybody out of existence preemptively. You read right – if the bush clan thinks Canada is too socialist (meaning communist according to all redneck news outlets) then they might just bomb it. You never know, US citizens might one day think this “free” healthcare system is as good as what we see in “Sicko”. And, you know, socialism (aka. communism) breeds extremism and eventually terrorism. But no, this gung ho attitude has nothing to do with people blowing themselves up in the Middle East. No, just watch the US army go: more troops = more peace!

Assuming you’re still reading and you still believe all the stuff they post about Al-Qaida and its overnight elite soldiers executing spontaneous brilliantly rehearsed attacks on strategic points, please have your head checked. Al-Qaida’s has a real name and it’s Patsy. She’s the fall guy for everything. From a dipping economy to a hockey team not making the finals, it’s all about terrorism and those “uneducated people from the Middle East”. All these people want is their country back and a chance to lead a normal life. Sound a lot like what most Americans want to do. But you’d never know watching Fox.

So the question remains. Assuming all this terrorism is both a real farce on American soil and easily resolvable by giving the countries back to their rightful owners, why go around passing laws that would make Hitler shudder? The answer is too simple perhaps to be accepted. There is more than one rotten apple in the bush basket. In fact it’s been festering badly for a while now. And someone’s been frantically painting all the apples red. And like that story where the king believes he had the kingdom’s most beautiful coat, no one dare say he’s walking naked in front of the world…




I smell Jack Anderson
By JayDeeJohn on 3/16/2008 2:12:53 AM , Rating: 2
Jack was a columnist who turned in several cia agents, who were either arrested, harmed and certainly rendered useless by his actions. He worked for ythe LA Times. I find it hard for people to not understand that theres a trust issue on both sides here. Its unfortunate people dont trust their government, so much as they wont even let them protect them. Its called patriotism people. This same trust, ideal, is why people join the armed forces. Im tired of every lawyer getting his way, which means he simply gets to take it to court, be it right or wrong, as he still wins. Im tired of people wanting to stick it to the man, or corporations, in this case. Every movie coming out of hollywood has a form of it somehow someway, yet the hollywood corporation wont even settle a strike by their own people, rotting evil corp that it is. Trust is what we need , not what we have




Ignorance
By Zensphere on 3/15/08, Rating: -1
RE: Ignorance
By Jrouss on 3/15/2008 10:04:51 AM , Rating: 3
I don't get your point.

Are you saying telcos should have blanket imunities and the judicial branch doesn't matter?

No entity be granted the ability to operate with no oversight or imunity from our laws for any reason. Anything else seems to be against every belief I was brought up with. I also don't see how this is a partisan issue.


RE: Ignorance
By CarsonM on 3/15/2008 11:31:45 AM , Rating: 2
Who said anything about minimizing the role of the Judicial Branch? No one has changed the constitution while I was sleeping have they? If you believe the acts of this or any law violates the constitution, argue your point in court; the court of public opinion is irrelevant.


RE: Ignorance
By rninneman on 3/15/2008 1:29:47 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think you understand what the immunity part of the bill was intended for. It was retroactive immunity for previous involvement in the NSA wiretapping program. It has nothing to do with future actions by the telcos.

Why should they be held accountable? The government approached them for assistance with wiretapping foreign nationals suspected to be terrorists. It is not the job of the telcos to say, well let me see what information you have on this suspected terrorist and then I'll make a decision about whether I will help you. They are not accountable for not asking to see warrants (even though there were not any) because the taps were for foreign communications that are not protected by the 5th amendment.

It's become a partisan issue because the Democrats will do anything they can to undermine anything the Bush administration does whether it is right or wrong.


RE: Ignorance
By smitty3268 on 3/15/2008 2:47:10 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Why should they be held accountable?

Umm, because they broke the law? This is a country of laws, and I don't think anyone should be above them.

quote:
They are not accountable for not asking to see warrants (even though there were not any) because the taps were for foreign communications that are not protected by the 5th amendment.

If that's true, then they didn't break any laws and this retroactive immunity isn't needed anyway. So why the insistence, to the point of vetoing a law, if it doesn't matter one way or the other?


RE: Ignorance
By DRMichael on 3/15/2008 3:28:37 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Umm, because they broke the law?

Then take your grievances to Court

Why does every left-wing Bush hater consistently use the logically invalid talking point “What they’re doing is illegal”? It is NOT ILLEGAL if it is LAW. If you BELIEVE that it is unconstitutional, then take your argument to Court as the above post stated.

But if I were you, I would be taking my criticism to the Democratic Party and asking them why the Democratic controlled Senate passed a bill that allows immunity to the Telecoms back in February of this year.


RE: Ignorance
By phisrow on 3/15/2008 3:49:42 PM , Rating: 5
We have taken our grievances to court. There are a fair few lawsuits against the telcos currently working their way through the courts.

What the administration is demanding, and the house has rejected, is a law that would block the resolution of grievances through the courts. If what they did was legal they don't need immunity. If what they did was a crime they don't deserve immunity.


RE: Ignorance
By smitty3268 on 3/15/2008 4:05:33 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. +1


RE: Ignorance
By smitty3268 on 3/15/2008 4:07:00 PM , Rating: 2
And by the way, no one is saying this is unconstitutional. We're saying it was against the law. The same way that, say, tax fraud isn't unconstitutional, just against the law.


RE: Ignorance
By DRMichael on 3/15/2008 4:20:22 PM , Rating: 3
So please enlighten...what law do you believe has been broken..specifically.


RE: Ignorance
By smitty3268 on 3/15/2008 4:49:22 PM , Rating: 2
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, of 1978. If I'm wrong, and it hasn't been broken, then fine. The telcos don't need any protection, do they? If they did break the law, though, then why let them get away with it?


RE: Ignorance
By DRMichael on 3/15/2008 5:12:40 PM , Rating: 4
The FISA Act of 1978 was revised by the Patriot Act. As for you explanation of why the Telco's need immunity..(See post below...you know - Sammy Socialist example)


RE: Ignorance
By rninneman on 3/15/2008 4:23:06 PM , Rating: 1
The reason why retroactive immunity is needed for the telcos is best summed up by a post by DRMichael

quote:
Try thinking logically for a second and without letting your unfiltered hatred for Bush to interfere: The reason for immunity is the government cannot divulge in a civil suit the classified nature of the foreign surveillance. This would mean when Mr. Sammy Socialist files a suit claiming AT&T violated his privacy on an incoming international call from Mr. Al Qaeda, the Feds are not coming to the rescue of AT&T to say “Well you see Your Honor, we had knowledge from an inside operative by the name of Agent Dead Manwalking that Mr. Al Qaeda is planning attacks”.

This entire topic is nothing more than Democrat Talking Points. There is oversight just as before. The difference is the amount of time needed to obtain warrants. Additionally, ask yourself why the Democrat controlled Senate passed a bill (68 – 29) that allowed immunity back in February.


RE: Ignorance
By smitty3268 on 3/15/2008 4:43:02 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, that's pretty biased right there. No one except a socialist could possibly bring this suit, huh? And the international calls had to have been from Al Qaeda? And you know for a fact that an inside operative had knowledge that someone in the conversation was planning attacks? From what little I can tell, this isn't the case at all and the government was just going on fishing expeditions. Of course, it's all highly classified so no one can know for sure...

"The difference is the amount of time needed to obtain warrants." - Uhm, yeah. Before the time was infinity, now it's back to the 90 days or so, that it was before all of this.

"Additionally, ask yourself why the Democrat controlled Senate passed a bill (68 – 29) that allowed immunity back in February." - I thought that was pretty obvious. The president threatened to call them terrorist loving, unpatriotic scum if they didn't pass the law, and they caved.


RE: Ignorance
By DRMichael on 3/15/2008 5:06:58 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
From what little I can tell, this isn't the case at all and the government was just going on fishing expeditions.


And YOU KNOW THIS HOW?

Why don't you read the actual law... it was originally 72 hours not 90 days.

quote:
The president threatened to call them terrorist loving, unpatriotic scum if they didn't pass the law, and they caved.

So you mean all this time we just have to threaten to call them
quote:
terrorist loving, unpatriotic scum
? - Yeah, you keep telling youself that!

As for my illustration on the lawsuit, I apologize for implying that only Socialists would seek damages; of course Communists, Fascists, and Democrats would as well ;) (SARCASM for those of you in Rio Linda)

But in a civil lawsuit if the defendant cannot show cause, in the form of a WARRANT, the plaintiff will win by default.


RE: Ignorance
By smitty3268 on 3/15/2008 5:30:13 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
And YOU KNOW THIS HOW?

Try actually reading my response, this time. As I said before, no one knows for sure. Not you or me. This really comes down to how much you trust the government - if you think you can trust them 100% then it's a non-issue, isn't it? But if you think that the government is mostly run by fallible people, like Nixon, Clinton, or Spitzer, then you want to keep checks and balances in place to make sure that things don't get out of control. Count me as part of the 2nd group.

quote:
Why don't you read the actual law... it was originally 72 hours not 90 days.

That's correct, my mistake. I do think they could use a bit more time than that - maybe 1 month or so. But I don't think anyone is actually arguing against that, are they? So it's completely beside the point.

quote:
So you mean all this time we just have to threaten to call them "terrorist loving, unpatriotic scum"? - Yeah, you keep telling youself that!

Come on now, did you even follow the process at all? There was serious democratic opposition from the start, and the president kept saying that anyone who didn't put in that provision was helping the terrorists and hurting america. Just like he's said for a bunch of different arguements. Dems have caved in just about every one of those.

quote:
As for my illustration on the lawsuit, I apologize for implying that only Socialists would seek damages; of course Communists, Fascists, and Democrats would as well ;) (SARCASM for those of you in Rio Linda)

Ok, I'll trust that it was sarcasm. It just really bothers me when people imply that I'm un-American just because I have a different opinion than they do. I love my country and want to keep it the best place on Earth. Part of that means, IMO, that the law should be followed. If there are problems with the law, then change it. But don't simply ignore it and then claim later that you should have immunity.


RE: Ignorance
By DRMichael on 3/15/2008 6:54:00 PM , Rating: 4
No one is advocating blind trust of the government without some kind of oversight, nor have I implied that you were un-American. However, from the amount of dissatisfaction that is implied by the immunity clause – albeit a minority voice, I would assume that most people don’t understand the why of immunity; to which I’ve already addressed.

But the question of whether the government is trying to ‘pull the wool over our eyes’ and do something ‘illegal’ is ignorant. There is oversight in FISA just as there was in the original act. In addition, the immunity clause that was passed by the Senate’s version of the new bill also included a “Review” clause to ensure oversight.

It can be seen directly here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:5:./tem...


RE: Ignorance
By DRMichael on 3/15/2008 7:19:30 PM , Rating: 5
Sorry, bad link. But here is the section under H.R.3773 as agreed to and passed by the Senate in February

It can be found by going to the following:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c110query.html
From there search by Bill Number and put in "hr3773"

SEC. 202. LIMITATIONS ON CIVIL ACTIONS FOR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDERS.

(a) Limitations-

(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a covered civil action shall not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court, and shall be promptly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the court that--

(A) the assistance alleged to have been provided by the electronic communication service provider was--

(i) in connection with an intelligence activity involving communications that was--

(I) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007; and

(II) designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation for a terrorist attack, against the United States; and

(ii) described in a written request or directive from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community (or the deputy of such person) to the electronic communication service provider indicating that the activity was--

(I) authorized by the President; and

(II) determined to be lawful; or

(B) the electronic communication service provider did not provide the alleged assistance.

(2) REVIEW- A certification made pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be subject to review by a court for abuse of discretion.

(b) Review of Certifications- If the Attorney General files a declaration under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, that disclosure of a certification made pursuant to subsection (a) would harm the national security of the United States, the court shall--

(1) review such certification in camera and ex parte; and

(2) limit any public disclosure concerning such certification, including any public order following such an ex parte review, to a statement that the conditions of subsection (a) have been met, without disclosing the subparagraph of subsection (a)(1) that is the basis for the certification.

(c) Nondelegation- The authority and duties of the Attorney General under this section shall be performed by the Attorney General (or Acting Attorney General) or a designee in a position not lower than the Deputy Attorney General.

(d) Civil Actions in State Court- A covered civil action that is brought in a State court shall be deemed to arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States and shall be removable under section 1441 of title 28, United States Code.

(e) Rule of Construction- Nothing in this section may be construed to limit any otherwise available immunity, privilege, or defense under any other provision of law.

(f) Effective Date and Application- This section shall apply to any covered civil action that is pending on or filed after the date of enactment of this Act.


RE: Ignorance
By smitty3268 on 3/15/2008 7:47:00 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
There is oversight in FISA just as there was in the original act.

I'm not denying that - the whole issue is that they weren't following FISA. I agree they are now and will in the future - unless the immunity thing goes through, in which case they may not see any reason to in the future.

quote:
In addition, the immunity clause that was passed by the Senate’s version of the new bill also included a “Review” clause to ensure oversight.

That "oversight" consists of the AG and President simply saying "it was important, and we asked them to do it". That's not what I call oversight.


RE: Ignorance
By DRMichael on 3/15/2008 8:52:02 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
That "oversight" consists of the AG and President simply saying "it was important, and we asked them to do it". That's not what I call oversight.

Did you not read the above?
shall be subject to review by a court for abuse of discretion.

If the Attorney General files a declaration under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, that disclosure of a certification made pursuant to subsection (a) would harm the national security of the United States, the court shall--

(1) review such certification in camera and ex parte; and

(2) limit any public disclosure concerning such certification, including any public order following such an ex parte review, to a statement that the conditions of subsection (a) have been met, without disclosing the subparagraph of subsection (a)(1) that is the basis for the certification.

What more do you want???

This clearly allows a Judge (Judicial Branch) to review the actions put in place by Congress (Legislative Branch). CHECKS and BALANCES. It couldn't be more clear.


RE: Ignorance
By smitty3268 on 3/15/2008 11:36:26 PM , Rating: 2
Admittedly, I'm not a lawyer, so maybe I'm misreading it. But it seems to me that the courts only have the ability to certify an action if it falls under any of the previous conditions, or not if it doesn't. Since one of those conditions was the president and AG saying they asked for it, that seems to be the only requirement.

In other words, if the President/AG asked for it, the court could then certify that they did, indeed, ask for it. Still not what I call oversight, sorry.


RE: Ignorance
By rninneman on 3/16/2008 12:52:32 PM , Rating: 2
It specifically used the phrase "abuse of discretion" which is read if it is used for something other than its intended purpose, preserving national security.

Bush haters just won't budge on anything he may have implemented during his administration. If it had been Clinton, none of these people could have cared less.


RE: Ignorance
By smitty3268 on 3/16/2008 3:14:06 PM , Rating: 2
LOL. If it had been Clinton, you're right the Democrats would be backing him up, while all the Republicans would be screaming about how he was abusing his power. :)


RE: Ignorance
By rninneman on 3/16/2008 10:53:57 PM , Rating: 2
No, the only people that would still have a problem with it would be the small percentage of kooks that believe the program is for spying on all Americans all the time. Those are probably the same people that believe the government brought down the WTC. That would never happen anyway though because Clinton was too busy staining interns' dresses and disappearing his enemies to worry about something like national security.


RE: Ignorance
By rninneman on 3/15/2008 5:40:57 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe Barry Bush-hater would have been a better example, but Barry and Sammy are best buddies so it's easy to get confused.

True, they may have been from Hezbollah, Hamas, or any number of other terrorist organizations actively trying to hurt the US in any way it can. If you use even an ounce of logic and reason, the possibility it was a "fishing expedition" is basically zero. Trying to get lucky and pluck a phone conversation about terrorism out of billions of phone calls per day is next to impossible. The technology and the man-power do not exist to accomplish such a task. At least you admitted to knowing very little.

We don't need warrants to spy on foreign nationals as this program was designed for. The constitution does not apply to people in other countries.

Or maybe hope is not lost for the senate and thats why they passed the bill. Show me where Bush threatened to call them "terrorist loving, unpatriotic scum" if they didn't pass the bill. I believe it was more along the lines of they would be handicapping our ability to collect intelligence on terrorist activity. Bush always remains politically correct even when it comes to the members of congress who are terrorist loving, unpatriotic scum.


RE: Ignorance
By theeq on 3/16/2008 12:41:21 AM , Rating: 2
I find your argument a little weak here. It is very possible to pull hundreds of conversations off of a database with just a few keywords. This is essentially what Google does every time you use its search engine, but this would a little slower and more complex because it is comparing wave patterns instead of simple ASCII characters.
You seem to be assuming that the conversations are monitored completely by humans and if that is true then your assumption would probably be completely correct. However, I am fairly certain that with all the processing power behind the NSA and Telcoms out there, this could be almost completely automated if they so wish. Biometrics research - the use of biological data for identification (in this case, voiceprinting and sound waveforms) - has undergone a good few advances since it was originally introduced and plucking one or two keywords out is an astonishingly easy process today.

As to Bush calling people names, of course he won't use those words. He's the leader of a world power with a building full of advisers and speechwriters. He could down a gallon of Jack Daniels and still know that saying that in public would get him in some incredibly deep trouble both politically and in the PR sense. He has, however, several times attacked anyone who goes against his policies as unpatriotic, not supporting the troops, etc. In lay-man speak, that is the political equivalent to getting shot in the sternum with an M16. So, no, he will not outright call his opponents scum, but he has sunk to that level, albeit in a completely PC way.


RE: Ignorance
By rninneman on 3/16/2008 12:44:04 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently you didn't read my entire post. I said the technology and man-power do not exist. Yes, while voice recognition technology has improved dramatically, it is still simply impossible to monitor all voice communications daily. Even if the false-positive rate was .1% (Which would be impossible to achieve with current technology) of the billions of phone conversations made every day, that is still 1 million false-positives for every billion phone calls. That's an awful lot of man-power needed to sift through those false positives. If there were that many people working on that data set, someone would have blown the whistle by now. Arguing that the government is monitoring all communications is about as feasible as the argument the 9/11 conspiracy kooks use that suggests the government imploded the World Trade Center.

You call it sinking to that level; I see it as calling a spade a spade. There are just some issues that should not be used for political grand-standing. (And for the record, the Democrats in the house have no intention to debate this issue because they know they will lose, therefore this is nothing more than political grand-standing. The senate Democrats knew better.)


RE: Ignorance
By sinful on 3/16/2008 4:28:35 PM , Rating: 2
I think you greatly underestimate the technology available today.
The NSA could throw a huge amount of supercomptuer power at a problem like this, so it really isn't a question of computing power. And it's not really a question of budget; I'm fairly certain nowdays the NSA could get the budget for soemthing like this without a problem. So, assuming the budget and computing power exists, we can make some guesses.

And even if you are right in saying that speech-to-text isn't perfect..... it doesn't need to be *perfect*, just "good enough".
So, for example, even 75% accuracy is going to be acceptable.

Assume then, after a day, their speech-to-text super computer(s) generates a textual database of all the phone calls made in the US.

Is it wholly unreasonable that they could then do searches for key words on that entire database of calls?
Heck, it even seems probable that they could evaluate the call's "threat factor" based on other words in the call.
i.e. if you say the word "airplane" and "bomb" in the same call, the call "scores" 50 points on a 100 point scale of "threat factor". Maybe other factors could be considered too - such as the frequency of the calls, distance between the callers, location of the call, etc.

And even at this point, you're still not in the realm of requiring a lot of manpower - just lots of computing power.

And even at that point, you *still* don't need to manually read those calls, until say, caller #344,323 makes 3 calls with a "threat factor" higher than a certain threshold.

And finally at that point, a person could physically evaluate the text of the call. How much text can a person read in a day, evaluating calls? I would say one person could go through a LOT of calls, sorting out false positives / generating leads. I.e if a database hit was something like "Oh I really bombed my ethics in government test", they can manually mark that call a false positive. That would take like 5 seconds to evaluate that single call.

When you realize they can narrow the search-set substantially by making some simple assumptions, it seems apparent it's not completely unlikely. I.e. more than likely, terrorists are going to be near major metropolitan centers. They're probably using a cell phone. They've probably made a call to a different country recently. The're probably a male. You can almost exclude calls from a major corporation to another major corporation. And so on...

Just based on those assumptions, I've narrowed the search set to maybe something like 1/4th of all the calls made.

Now, the whole process isn't going to be perfect, but it's practically inconceivable that they wouldn't at least TRY.

It's like saying a "no-fly list" would be impossible to implement, or it is impossible to search every person that boards a plane.

If you assume they're aiming for perfection, then yes, it's impossible. But if you realize they can at least cherry pick likely targets and search them, then no.

In fact, I would say it would be easier to implement this call-monitoring system than it would be to search passengers boarding airplanes. The former merely requires vast amounts of computing power; the latter requires actual people.

In other words, I don't see anything inherently impossible with the scenario.


RE: Ignorance
By rninneman on 3/16/2008 10:20:34 PM , Rating: 2
No, you are greatly over-estimating the technology. The scenario you suggested is a total pipe dream. An operation on the magnitude required to monitor and datamine all phone communications would be so large and conspicuous, there would be no hiding it. What other conspiracies are you worried about? Do you wear a tinfoil hat too?


RE: Ignorance
By sinful on 3/18/2008 8:51:26 PM , Rating: 2
First you say the technology and man-power don't exist.
I come up with a scenario that doesn't require far-reaching technology, and a relative minimum amount of man-power.

Now, you're saying you don't think it's possible just because you don't think they could *hide* it?

That's a pretty weak statement.

The infrastructure for such a project could practically be "hidden" in plain sight. Would you even know the difference between a Google server farm and an NSA server farm with a Google logo on the outside of the building?
Nope.

Just because you lack the vision for such a project doesn't mean it's not possible.
Let me guess, you don't think we landed on the moon, because it would be "impossible" too?


RE: Ignorance
By DOSGuy on 3/16/2008 10:17:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The government approached them for assistance with wiretapping foreign nationals suspected to be terrorists.


And they should have said no. These are large corporations with lawyers. They don't have to violate people's civil liberties just because they government asks them to. If the government doesn't present a warrant, they have no right to ask the telcos to do that.

I worked for a cable/internet/wireless/phone company back when the RIAA started suing file sharers. Every employee was advised to respond to customers that we would not cooperate with the RIAA without a court order. Customers trust their telephone company to protect their privacy. They should never violate that trust without a court order. EVER. All I can say is that their lawyers were taking a nap on this one. They should have refused, and now they've opened themselves up to legal action. They have this coming to them.


RE: Ignorance
By AlexWade on 3/15/2008 4:46:03 PM , Rating: 2
"Any country that will give up a little bit of liberty to gain a little bit of security will deserve neither and lose both."

Ben Franklin


RE: Ignorance
By Darkskypoet on 3/15/2008 7:52:56 PM , Rating: 1
Exactly! It's amazing to see how many so called "Patriotic Americans" forget the threat posed by the state. It is completely asinine to me to see some dick head spouting off crap about how those seeking to impede the powers of the state, are terrorist loving communists, et cetera (ad nauseum).

Seriously, WTF! Do you (right wing?) people remember at all what it was your Nation was built upon? It was not, I assure you, statism. Those who claim to be somehow more patriotic because you are all for dismembering checks and balances, the watering down of oversight, and the strengthening of the Leviathan must be on glue.

The internal threat of big powerful government, is far more hazardous then this constructed threat of the big nasty large other, that you are constantly prompted to fight. Of all the nations in the world, it is precisely the US that is supposed to lead us against tyranny. Both with big bombs, and guns, and planes and against the external threats to a supposedly 'free, and democratic' western society, AND the internal threats of the runaway state.

The very democracy that is to be brought to other 'failed states', terrorist states, rogue states, etc. Is not conformity to an extremely strong centralized invasive state. The democracy that nations held the US in high regard for, was that which was willing to take the risk of being free. The patriot act, is only patriotic for those fighting at the behest of the state, not its citizens! We are to be ever suspicious of the state, as it is an enemy with the keys to our houses. As much as we are to fear the external 'other' that we find lurking everywhere (seemingly), we must also, in memory of the founding fathers of democracy and liberty, be vigilant for the internal threat posed by our own leviathan. We must never cede freedom for security. As we will never be truly secure. It is a laughable joke to many that the fat, lazy first worlders are willing to trade away everything that they hold so dear, so as not to be afraid of the dark.

Why do we so easily fall for the oldest trick in the book? Look a terrorist, over there (points). Ha ha, I stole some more of your freedom, omg look, another one...

However, I believe Hitler made an excellent argument about how one must temporarily give up there freedom for security... Remember a small 'terrorist' incident at the Reichstag?

"It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Adolf Hitler, one of the strongest political leaders in history, would declare war on terrorism and ask the German parliament (the Reichstag) to give him temporary emergency powers to fight the terrorists. Passionately claiming that such powers were necessary to protect the freedom and well-being of the German people, Hitler persuaded the German legislators to give him the emergency powers he needed to confront the terrorist crisis. What became known as the Enabling Act allowed Hitler to suspend civil liberties “temporarily,” that is, until the crisis had passed. Not surprisingly, however, the threat of terrorism never subsided and Hitler’s “temporary” emergency powers, which were periodically renewed by the Reichstag, were still in effect when he took his own life some 12 years later. "

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0703a.asp


RE: Ignorance
By DRMichael on 3/15/2008 8:35:07 PM , Rating: 3
What a wonderful speech. If Obama’s well of orating ever runs dry you should stand at his ready. Stop being a hate driven, name calling Neo-Lib and get an education and join the discussion with some substantive points.


RE: Ignorance
By theeq on 3/16/2008 12:47:06 AM , Rating: 1
I have read all of your comments on this thread, and you should be ashamed. You have made some valid points and brought some very good sources and cited information into this discussion, but this is intolerable. This is a well written post with a good citation to back it up and you bash it as uneducated and hate mongering, even as you have written some of those most aggressive and attacking posts on this article. Just because someone does not agree with you, you are not given the right to assume he or she is a mindless partisan-puppet with nothing useful to say.


RE: Ignorance
By Darkskypoet on 3/16/08, Rating: 0
RE: Ignorance
By DRMichael on 3/16/2008 8:20:07 PM , Rating: 4
Never did I use the word Patriot. Nor was it I that used the term "dick head". However it was you whom so eloquently wrote: “Seriously, WTF!”, and began to question the “(right wing?) people” on the foundational principles on which my nation was founded. (Didn’t you claim to be Canadian at one time?) And again it was you who so unintelligently claim that the “people of the US simply want to have a dictator”. Please, get off your high horse and enter the fray with some intelligence on the subject at hand rather than using this thread as a soapbox to spew your contempt for the United States.

So I’ll ask again; this time in simpler terms:

What point of view do you bring to the discussion regarding the FISA update and what is your reasoning behind your view?


RE: Ignorance
By Darkskypoet on 3/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: Ignorance
By JayDeeJohn on 3/16/2008 2:18:55 AM , Rating: 2
Did you know that Suddam Husseins uncle was in the Nazi party? And the his uncle raised him? And that he, Saddam was a facist? Read up on it


RE: Ignorance
By JayDeeJohn on 3/16/2008 2:33:25 AM , Rating: 2
Ben Franklin would know where to draw the line. Today alot of us dont. Certainly the media doesnt. Should we allow all social security numbers to be made public? Just to make sure that someone else isnt using yours? This is just one example, it may be bad, it may not, but then again thats where we are all at on this issue. I myself sit on the side of caution, meaning that too much information out isnt a good thing either. Doesnt anyone think in that direction at all? Or is it the evil corporation/government against us lil guys all over again? Like I posted ealier, if the libs in hollywood were actually sooo concerned about the lil guy, then the writers strike would have never happened.


RE: Ignorance
By theeq on 3/16/2008 11:16:48 AM , Rating: 2
I don't Franklin was talking about privacy so much as infringing on personal freedoms. I agree with you, personal information should be available only at a premium (something people on sites like Facebook just don't seem to comprehend) because if it gets onto something like the internet, it's going to go everywhere and without any resistance. But this is more about the government doing things like suspending habeus corpus, making a no-fly list three miles long, and censoring everything into infinity, all for our "safety and protection." I'm pretty sure Franklin would be very upset with how things are run today, especially with all the additional executive power that's being piled on.


RE: Ignorance
By Ringold on 3/16/2008 5:26:04 PM , Rating: 2
He probably would be.

On the other hand, wealth redistribution being used as a means of class warfare, massive welfare schemes, and the prospect of government mandated health care, abortion, gun bans, trade protectionism and even heavier regulation both on the company and on the individual (even if in the name of being 'green') would likely have him and all his peers wondering what country this is, and wondering why there hasn't been a strong armed rebellion in so long.

And which party supports all those things, some of which were unconstitutional at the time, which would offend their sense of liberty? That's right. Your party.

It's almost insulting when todays Democrats even quote them, as if they have almost anything at all in common. Republican's don't always line up with the libertarian view perfectly, but at least they're in the same ballpark.


Pending litigation
By Fnoob on 3/15/08, Rating: -1
RE: Pending litigation
By LumbergTech on 3/15/2008 4:11:15 PM , Rating: 5
yea, screw freedom..high phone bills are the #1 threat to america these days


RE: Pending litigation
By DRMichael on 3/15/2008 4:39:03 PM , Rating: 4
<Sarcasm>
That's why it's soo important we throw the Democrat controlled Senate out for passing its bill to allow immunity for the Telco's (68 to 29). I think these Democrats are in bed with "Big Business'" like AT&T, Verizon, and the rest.
</Sarcasm>

And to the rest of the Blind-Bush-Haters:
Don't let the truth stand in the way of your talking points.


RE: Pending litigation
By kitchme on 3/15/2008 4:53:10 PM , Rating: 2
I hear you. When will these people see that this administration is all about the truth.


RE: Pending litigation
By Fnoob on 3/15/2008 10:11:05 PM , Rating: 2
When it cuts into your Koolaid budget, perhaps you'll understand.

Sigh...

Immediately following 911, our Government asks the telco's to assist efforts towards our security, which (being sane) they do. Now, we have ambulance chasing lawyers representing a handfull of whiners like you who feel somehow violated and want to sue for billions? Perhaps once one US dollar = one French Franc you will be happy.


RE: Pending litigation
By Gul Westfale on 3/16/2008 12:50:45 AM , Rating: 2
they used flavor-aid at jonestown, not kool-aid.


RE: Pending litigation
By deathwombat on 3/16/2008 3:42:55 AM , Rating: 2
I'm glad that you don't mind that the government can listen to your calls without a warrant. As for me, I can never be President because someone may have recorded my phone calls to my girlfriend. If you think Elliot Spitzer's phone calls were embarrassing, that's nothing compared to the file the FBI has on me!


RE: Pending litigation
By DOSGuy on 3/16/2008 4:07:18 AM , Rating: 2
Look, it's this simple. If the government asks my telephone provider to wiretap my phone calls, I expect my provider to tell them to go f*** themselves until they can come back with a warrant. If they won't do that, I'll switch to a provider who will. If the government has anything on me, they can get a warrant. If they don't have enough evidence to get a warrant, they shouldn't be listening to my phone calls, period.

When the Department of Justice subpoenaed Google's search records, they refused because (being sane) they employ lawyers who told them that handing over that information would open them up to litigation. My question is: where were the telcos' lawyers when the government wanted to wiretap without warrants? Were they all on vacation that day? The telcos should have known better. They broke the law, and there has to be consequences for that. The next time the government asks them to violate their customers' civil liberties without a court order, maybe they'll do the right thing and tell them to jump in a lake.


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki