Senate Democrats gearing up to give Bush a FISA talking point.
...Well, they probably don't think of it that way. Unless they do.
By Moe Lane Posted in Congress — Comments (74) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
UPDATE: Both cloture motions fail, right on schedule. Amusingly, this passage by Greenwald sums it up nicely, once you get past the rather peculiar worldview that considers reckless Democratic obstructionism to be "meaningfully good," and listening in on our enemies to be bad:
All this really means is that they will now proceed to debate and vote on the pending amendments to the bill, almost certainly defeat all of the meaningfully good ones, approve a couple of amendments which improve the bill in the most marginal ways, and then end up ultimately voting for a bill that contains both telecom immunity and warrantless eavesdropping. Moreover, it seems clear that Senate Republicans deliberately provoked this outcome and were hoping for it, by sabotaging what looked to be imminent Democratic capitulation so that Bush could accuse Democrats tonight of failing to pass a new FISA bill, thus helping their friend Osama.
Thanks, guys, he will. And you did fail - and I'll add that it's all your fault, too. Although please note that it was Greenwald, not I, who accused you of being Osama's buddy.
----------
I just finished participating in a conference call with Senator Kit Bond (R-MO) regarding the FISA bill (other attendees included folks from NAM's ShopBlog, the Weekly Standard, and Newsbusters). When asked whether we were going to get cloture on the Bond-Rockefeller amendment (highlighted because, like a doofus, I didn't say it the first time), the Senator reported that it's unlikely.
This almost certainly means that we're going to hear about it tonight in the SotU address, and does certainly mean that the clock is now ticking in earnest for Senator Reid to stop being obstructionist on something that obviously enjoys bipartisan support*. The vote will start up at 4:30, so we'll see.
*When asked (ramblingly, to be sure) about Senator Alexander's bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship, Senator Bond rather effortlessly avoided the somewhat clumsy rhetorical trap and noted that there's nothing more conservative than defending the country; so it then followed bipartisanship in this case reflected proper conservative and Republican values (I paraphrase).
Guess I don't have that killer instinct.
« Rep. Capuano's Newspeak for Censorship — Comments (5) | Half a Loaf Watch, 1/28/2008. — Comments (6) »
Senate Democrats gearing up to give Bush a FISA talking point. 74 Comments (0 topical, 74 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
...we still are, I'm fine with them data mining, I agree that the situation doesn't require warrants, without immunity they'll be blanketed in a blizzard of nuisance suits, I remember being that innocent, again I'm fine with them data mining, if the Democrats don't want to be seen as soft on terror then they shouldn't be soft on terror, do not again urinate on the victims of totalitarian regimes by suggesting that we're morally equivalent to those regimes, and stop trying to scare us (as well as yourself) by waving Hillary Clinton in our faces.
I think that covers it.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
As I conservative I NEVER EVER NEVER want to define what I am for by first determining what liberals are against.
As a conservative it bothers me a lot how stringent consevatives can be on some amendments and how flippant we can be on others. It certainly does us no good in the eyes of independants or moderates to address one amendment (like the 1st or 2nd) with the serious of a heart attack and others (4th) with a very flexible, nay LIBERAL, attitude.
I, as a conservative, am dead serious about all the amendments. I am also hope all conservatives are.
As for the democrats, we don't need this FISA debate to show they are weak on terror. We have another few hundred arrows in our quill we can use to kill that debate anytime we want to blast away at the weak and spineless Dems.
Finally, I am not saying we are morally equivalent to totalitarian regimes - far from it. I simply wish to point out that we are starting down a path that all totalitiarian regimes start down - and usually under the banner of national security.
Except for the bit where you tried to explain away your attempt at moral equivalence. Explanations weren't required, merely obedience.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Like sitting on your hands and supporting the govenments warrantless searches in explicit violation of the 4th amendment?
Conservatives generally don't bend over for the expansion of the government in general and its ability to pry into the lives of its citizens in particular.
I think too many conservatives see this issue as a hammer to pound liberals with instead of big compromise of conservative values.
My copy doesn't say that warrants must be issued in public, nor even that all searches must come with a warrant. It just says that searches must be reasonable, and sets a technical standard for warrants.
extremely non-cooperative, which will negatively impact the security of the country and the safety of Americans.
The more the court system is brought in (a goal of democrats and the ACLU), the less effective domestic anti-terrorism is going to be.
The government can afford to litigate these issues---the telecoms cannot. Thus, any lawsuits should be forced to make the government the defendant---NOT the government.
Give people their day in court? Fine--but not with the telecom companies.
Or insult my intelligence. You attempted to play the moral equivalence game; and when properly called on it by a site moderator you tried to excuse your behavior instead of reforming it.
Do you want this taken to the next level, or do you want to quit while you're behind? Your call.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
"...and stop trying to scare us (as well as yourself) by waving Hillary Clinton in our faces."
Careful here Moe. This is a bit of fear that I take very seriously, and I am not alone among my peers.
What on Earth does FISA have to do with "the federal government hav[ing] this kind of entry into the details of our private lives?"
FISA doesn't grant the government any new powers. All it does is change the target's knowledge of when the government uses those powers. Secret hearings and sneak-and-peek searches don't make a search less intrusive than the ones conducted under normal warrants.
So as things stand, I don't know what you're on about.
And I don't buy the frivolous law suit argument.
If they are frivolous then the Courts will say so. If they say so - the law suits will fail and others who want to sue will slink away as there are penalties and sanctions for bringing frivolous suits.
The courts can't always be trusted to find their own body parts with both hands, see Roe v. Wade for a good example. Sometimes they need the Congress to come out and make things explicit for them.
The First Amendment says "right to petition the government for redress of grievances" but we all know that that's talking about lobbying.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
This may be a stalking horse for anti-Bush action, but they're not actually suing the government here.
When you "petition the government for redress of grievances" does that entail the right to go to the government and say "Dude, that guy over there stole my car, I have a receipt of purchase, I have a title, I need you to make it right" or not?
I am, for the record, open to "the right to petition the government for redress of grievances" being interpreted narrowly.
I would just like to hear an argument for why it makes more sense to read it narrowly than to read it broadly to the point where the average citizen has access to civil courts to set things right.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
The context of the amendment is all person versus state. The right of a person to have religion against a state church, the right of a person to express ideas against state prohibition, and the right of a person to carry grievances to the government against retribution.
When I see the word 'petition' there, I think of the Declaration of Independence. That document, flowerly language of Jefferson's aside, was primarily a petition for redress of grievances.
The idea of bringing in a third party in the part about grievances just doesn't make sense to me. It's not a reasonable reading of the text.
No. One cannot petition the government and say something to the effect of "my roommate rolled over on her baby and smothered it and then she stole mine, make it right".
We do not have that right enumerated in the Constitution.
That is your position?
Allow me to say that I disagree.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
The right to sue comes from the common law and I guess the 9th amendment, however the only express part of the Constitution here that's relevant, is the authority of the Congress to restrict the jurisdiction of the courts. See Article III.
Instead of "suing for damages", why not "petitioning the government to get that other guy to stop doing what he's doing."
Is that covered or is my interpretation of the first broad to the point where it is completely absurd?
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
I'm open to evidence that it's what a person could reasonable have expected the First to mean when it was ratified, but I just don't see that in the text.
I'm a textualist.
Is one that allows for access to civil courts to resolve the grievances between two people.
The text does not say "grievances against the Government", but "grievances".
Petitioning the government for redress of grievances covers minutae down to the stuff you see on The People's Court. "He killed my goldfish!" "His goldfish just died!" "You're both idiots. Case closed." "Thank you Judge Wapner."
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
"Redress of grievances" entails solely stuff like Kelo or where the government breaks a few eggs in pursuit of an omelette but not when it comes to access for the citizenry to civil courts?
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
...the telecom companies may have done something illegal and the fact that it was at the behest of the government is irrelevant, especially since we want private companies asking themselves if what they are doing is LEGAL in the face of institutional pressure.
You may approve of what they've done this time (and I may not) but I doubt you want to set up a system where companies ASSUME their actions are legal just because they've been asked by the government.
If "immunity" is read as "we're asking the companies to do something that could very well be illegal but we want them to act without sanction because surely you understand that there are people out there who want to kill our children" then, by all means! Pass the law!
I'm afraid that, instead, it will be read as "Not only is this legal/Constitutional, we don't have to prove that this is legal/Constitutional and, more than that, we don't want you to have the option of proving that it isn't."
I'm cool with the first interpretation.
I'm very uncool with the second.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
What part of the FISA law is hurt by NOT granting retroactive immunity? Unless we've gotten to the point where the "people want to kill our children" principal makes the Constitution moot. In which case, the Constitution will be moot from here forward, probably until the United States no longer exists.
Well how can it ever be the first without allowing the courts to TEST whether or not what the telecom companies ALREADY did was legal?
Then let congress get explicit as they want to within the boundries of the constitution.
That doesn't address the what the telecoms already have done without a warrant.
If the courts NOW have no jurisdiction over what happened THEN, then the lawsuits just don't happen. Period.
What you are saying is let's give the telecoms cover now even though they didn't have it when they searched without a warrant.
That's scary big brother tactics in my view.
How is "retroactive immunity" legally/morally/semantically different than "amnesty"? Because we like the outcome?
“The difference between a Republican and a Democrat is the Democrat is a cannibal -- they have to live off each other--while the Republicans, why, they live off the Democrats.” --- Will Rogers
Retroactive immunity for telecoms is relevant to the current discussion. Amnesty is not. That's the short answer.
However, in principle they're similar. In both cases, people seek to reward those who break the law, and could both correctly be called Amnesty. Republicans generally support amnesty for rich white guys who break the law under direction of the GOP. See Scooter Libby and the telecoms. On the other hand, they vehemently oppose amnesty for brown-skinned people. It generally get decided that way.
Personally, I think rewarding people who break the law, en masse, is terrible policy. On a case-by-case basis, there is often an argument to be made to excuse lawbreaking. But if you don't look at this on a case-by-case basis, then you throw the rule of law out the window.
...would get it through your heads that just because you'd do something for a particular reason, doesn't mean that we'd do it for the same reason.
Sheesh. Do some freaking oppo research next time.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Moe, that's a meaningless response if ever there was one. Do you disagree with anything I said above? If so, what, and why? Just explain your point rationally, and if it's sound, it's bound to prevail. C'mon, what have you got to lose? You can always ban me if you start to look foolish.
If all this is on the up and up... then the courts will affirm that.
Why should the telecom companies have more protection against "frivolous" law suits than anyone else in America?
If it's a big enough case (like the phone companies), the ACLU, etal can shop for a federal judge who can be counted on to rule in their favor. It's standard practice.
Go look up the last time a federal judge imposed financial sanctions on a plaintiff or a plaintiff's attorney.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
But I do not believe a suit against one of the telecoms that cooperated with the government is frivolous.
The telecoms know they screwed up and now want government to protect them. Too bad.
If conservatives allow the 4th amendment to become a piece of Swiss Cheese then how do we argue for the most strict application of the 1st and 2nd?
The point is, at best arguable. Which is why they should be granted immunity. This should never see the inside of a court room.
What will happen, and why it should never see the light of day, is that plaintiffs will merrily subpoena the govt, requesting information on what would be done with the subject info. Guess what? That's top secret and won't be released. Lots of headlines, lots of screaming from pantywaste liberals.
This is just BS.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
...anybody arguing the opposite side of this to concede that the primary objective here is to play discovery games in order to further a partisan political agenda.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
And I'm sure the liberals who would bring these suits are not acting in a partisan manner either. They're just concerned about my ability to call my grandfather in Afghanistan, checking on his health in that cold dusty cave.
:>)
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
This isn't about you calling your granny. The government isn't interested in that. This isn't about Osama calling Abdul to explain where the attack should be. FISA currently allows for quick and easy ability to track that kind of call, generally providing a warrant retroactively after the wiretapping has already taken place.
The only argument in favor of warrantless wiretapping, and an interest in not investigating the wiretapping that has already taken place, is that certain types of wiretapping would not be approved or would be embarrassing to ask for. What types would those be? How about tracking the communication of political opponents or journalists?
Before you call me a paranoid delusional, keep in mind that history supports this. Just about every regime in history who has been able to monitor domestic communication (in whatever form it takes) generally has used this power to spy on its political opponents. FISA was enacted as a reaction to precisely that, as done by the Nixon Admin.
Now, perhaps most of you have no problem with the Bush Admin tracking calls by the Democrats or NY Times journalists, or Seymour Hersch, or any other political opponents. But this power that you're all arguing for will soon be in the hands of a Democrat. Are you happy for the next Democratic president to be able to track the phone calls of the GOP opposition, and check the activities of pesky journalists who would expose them?
You might want to consider what you're arguing for.
and analyzing EVERY phone call, email, letter, package, text message, etc between anyone in the US and anyone overseas.
I don't give a damn about lawyers, journalists, politicians. If one leg of the communication is outside US borders we should be listening/reading/whatever to everything.
And, if we pick up something suspicious - especially if one party is a politician, journalist or lawyer - they should be picked up and sent to Romania or Jordan for questioning.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Mbecker, I congratulate you on your honesty! That's the most well-articulated argument I've read in favor of an authoritarian system.
But I feel compelled to point out: there already exist many authoritarian regimes who practice exactly what you prescribe. In the meantime, this country was meant to be something different from that. Couldn't you just move to one of those countries, and leave this one alone? It would be better for everyone.
So you can file in the Northern District of California (San Francisco) but that doesn't allow you try an cherry pick the judge.
Limited sanction awards are not that uncommon. Particularly in the context of misbehavior in discovery. You are right however that sanctions in the context of a motion to dismiss are pretty darn rare.
of a frivolous lawsuit! It costs thousands, even tens or hundreds of thousands, just to protect you innocence, and that's just if you get it dismissed on summary judgement. If they can get you to trial, and they will if the judge is from the other party, the cost goes up exponentially.
In Vino Veritas
with the attendant fines? I don't.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
was the defendant. My State does allow recovery from plaintiffs when a suit is dismissed and the State has become fairly agressive about it. The formula is such that the recovery isn't very good, but it is enough to dissuade a lot of the scumbags who ply this trade.
It isn't a game that any but the richest private citizens or private businesses could play; just too expensive.
In Vino Veritas
If you are small and can protract things out and the plaintiff is large you can make yourself the equivalent of deadweight and go for infinite prolongation of the suit. If you are a corporate entity you can also render the attacked company an empty vessel and make it impossible for them to collect a judgment.
I had quite a large company sue me to stop me from moving in on their market. We just played dead until they gave up. They had hired a white shoe manhattan lawfirm and they had hired a rather high end local law firm to be the forwarding entity.
By my estimate they spent 50-100 K to my 2.5 and untimately they settled to drop suit.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
a Motion for Summary Judgment. In the context of a truly frivolous lawsuit, the defendant files a motion pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6).
Motion to dismiss - must presume all of the Plaintiff's alleged facts are true
Motion for summary judgment - must presume any/all factual disputes in favor of the Plaintiff
If I file a lawsuit against someone because they own a dog---it will be dismissed because the facts as I allege them to be true, do not constitute a cause of action.
If I file a lawsuit against someone alleging that they conspired to kill my dog (and my dog is in fact missing or dead), the lawsuit may or may not survive summary judgment depending on what the known facts are.
I can't figure out the reasoning. We have to give telecoms immunity for breaking laws because if we don't give them immunity they may not be willing to break laws in the future?
There's got to be a better way.
of cloture (60 votes). Is John McCain going to be in the senate today to try to help us get to 60? I know Obama and Clinton will be there to vote NO. Or is all this stuff no longer important to McCain? Just wondering if he'll be there.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
This delays the Dem capitulation for a day or two, as they will take up amendments tomorrow and then essentially give Bush the bill he asked for with immunity. There is no majority in the senate to strip that provision. And if it is close, McCain better be there to vote the right way.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
immunity, and from a few posts here, thereby sanction illegal activities on the part of the "tele' companies. I'm curious, if what the companies did was illegal then perforce what the Administration did was illegal. Yet strangely enough that assertion is not made.
Yet surely the administration must be engaged in some illegal activities in utilizing the technology and information generated in turn by the illegal actions of the companies. Or does it become legal by transfer and usage to the government? Puzzling.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
Johnt, the primary point of retroactive telecom immunity is to prevent the telecoms from having to explain exactly what they did. The Bush Admin doesn't want them to explain this, even in secret, because it will expose administration law-breaking exactly as your describe.
Bush Admin is trying to establish 2 precedents here: 1) that whatever the telecoms did they're immune from any consequences; and 2) that if the president orders private individuals to break the law, then it isn't breaking the law. This second provision pretty well levels the rule of law in this country.
Recall that during the 70s, Nixon floated this exact theory: if the president does it, that means it's legal. That theory, as we all found out, didn't fly. However, fast-forward 30 years, and it's clear that the country is ready to abandon rule of law in favor of rule by men. This represents a truly radical departure from what we have been for the past 200+ years. The fact that the people promoting this radical departure refer to themselves as "conservative" is appalling.
and missed you.
You are stuck in a bit of a bind. If the program is illegal why has Congress already extended it, and why are they on the verge of extending it again? And why, further, are they apparently about to grant telcom immunity to what you believe is patently illegal?
Why, since late September 2001, did select members of both intelligence committee's countenance the program? Why have the FISA courts, which hold oversight powers, not shut the program in it's entirety down?
Why was the man who originally briefed those committee members and who headed up the program in '01 and for years afterwards, General Haydn, elevated from the NSA to Director of the CIA by a Senate vote of 73-23 instead of a slap down?
Why? Because the program was and is legal ! Which is why it still exists and will continue to do so.
Of course I am only going by the evidence of my senses and I am aware of the possibility of different universes.
And why paulio do you lecture me on the rule of law and only bring up Nixon? Would you care for a review of corruption and disdain for law in other, possibly Democratic administrations?
Apart from the fact that the surveillance program has been found perfectly legal.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
Sorry, John, had Moe not needed to ban me as his only means to counter my arguments, I could have replied earlier. (I'll be banned again, as sure as day follows night, so forgive me for not being able to reply further.)
The wiretapping program began in 2001 (it was actually requested in Feb 2001, that is, before 9/11, but they didn't get any telecoms to comply until afterwards). The Protect America Act, which gave this practice some legality, wasn't ratified until last year. A quick bit of math would indicate that there were, let's see, 6 years during which wiretapping was practiced extralegally.
The reason they're about to grant the telecoms immunity is due to corruption. The republicans, and a handful of Blue Dog democrats, are granting the Bush Administration the cover it desires, preventing the details of this extralegal activity from becoming known. In so doing, they're directly going against the constitution.
As for why members of the subcommittee didn't shut down the program, you would have to ask them. Regardless, it takes more than the tacit approval of a few members of a subcommittee to override constitutional protections. Go back to Schoolhouse Rock.
Your insistence that the tacit support of various people in government proves that the program was always legal defies logic. You don't need legal immunity when you have engaged in legal activity. You simply prove that in court. The telecoms are currently embroiled in literally thousands of court cases right now, with legal bills in the millions of dollars annually. This is a fact of their business. If they have a solid case, they will have no problem proving it in court. That's how our system is supposed to work.
As for why I only brought up Nixon, it was because something Nixon said was directly relevant to this conversation. Nixon said something that you would agree with: if the president does it, that means it's not illegal. However, this reasoning is false, and Nixon was forced to resign as a result.
However, if it puts your back up to have me solely pick on Republicans, please note that during the Clinton Admin, which made many attempts to similarly circumvent the Constitution, I protested against those moves ardently, against Carnivore and Eschelon. I believe that checks and balances and oversight are absolutely required to maintain a representative government in this country, and I won't see those things abandoned regardless which letter the president puts after his name. That is what you'd call a "guiding principle," and it transcends partisan politics. You'd do well to adopt a few of those yourself.
Face it, soon there will be a democratic president, and if this wiretapping law goes through, that democrat will be very likely using it to keep tabs on republicans. Is that really what you want?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
This is the 4th amendment. You will notice that it only refers to physical actions by the government. It was only after the ridiculous Katz decision, which overruled a prior precedent, that we got into the silliness of searching and seizing conversations traveling through the air. (If you want that to be the amendment, than pass a new one!)
Further, as has been mentioned, even if you go with the idiotic Katz decision, there have always been exceptions to the warrant requirement. Most importantly, there is the border search exception, which allows persons to be searched when they enter or leave this country - even if they are citizens. BTW, the surveillance we are discussing are phone calls that go out of or into this country. So there is no violation.
PS: Exactly how is anyone harmed by the government "seizing their conversations?" That is, unless the guy is guilty of something. If the government had the time and money to stupidly listen in on my phone calls to my overseas girlfriend (a few years back), I could care less, although I do wonder why the government is wasting its time and money on me - and so I would vote against it the very next election.
Are you under the impression that governments are run by angels?
Martin Luther King, Jr. was under warrantless government surveillance. Did he do anything wrong? No, but he did lead protests against unethical government policies.
The government tried discredit King and scuttle the civil rights movement. They tried to discredit King and scuttle the civil rights movement by revealing things about his private life, possibly even manipulating surveillance data that they had harvested without warrants.
I forgot to include this in my previous post.
Of course, it is possible that the surveillance did violate the FISA. The FISA law is an equally ridiculous law we passed to protect our "conversations" from the Nixon Administration. (Once again, how am I harmed by this spying if I did nothing illegal. Using the info they find on me to blackmail me would be illegal based on other laws.) FISA is unnecessarily and dangerously broad, and totally out of date. For example, it makes distinctions regarding when the message is seized, whether it is over the wires or through the air.
However, FISA cannot be used to restrict a constitutional power, and that is where the Administration has its trump card. The communications it is targeting are clearly foreign intelligence, and that is considered the province of the Executive thanks to Article II. Even the courts believe that. And thus, the Constitution trumps FISA.
PS: The Bush Administration argument on the AUMF, while inventive, is total bunk.
Thus ends my lesson for today.
" I'm curious, if what the companies did was illegal then perforce what the Administration did was illegal. Yet strangely enough that assertion is not made. "
It certainly IS! That's part of the reason for not granting immunity . Immunity = no court cases = no testimony = White House lawbreaking is never even officialy (i.e., in court) brought up for consideration . There's also a question of leverage . With immunity , Congress , should those with backbones actually prevail, has nothing to trade for testimony. I'm no legal beagle , so wonder if Congress would even have any basis for holding hearings.I also doubt that because the crimes were committed by 3rd parties, those in government that sanctioned them are free of any criminal liability .
paulio is exactly right IMO, so I won't reiterate any of that.
I wonder if there's more to it than just illegal searches . By some accounts , some companies asked for warrants .When told they couldn't have them, they complied anyway . Why? Qwest didn't. Then coincidentally , the CEO was brought up on insider trading charges (recently convicted) . Did he do it, or is it manufactured? Is it related to this issue? How did they get the evidence? What is the prosecutor's situation, in regard to the federal attorney firings? Were there any "carrots" or "sticks used to get cooperation from the others? Did the current digital auctions have anything to do with it? http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wskg/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTI... Was any of the information derived from the searches put to other uses? All of these questions (& more?) need to be answered. Probably won't have any chance of answers , if immunity is granted .
Also , there's more to this bill(s) than just what's being discussed . Some devilish details! There's a link on Greenwald's blog . Sorry, don't remember in exactly what post ( #&@&! concussions! ;D), but it's not too far back .
"Frivilous lawsuits" ? Hardly!. These are felonies , and unconstitutional ( for the govt. agents behind it).
"the safety of Americans." PUH-leeez! That's who was targeted .We're a lot more likely to be abused by government , than attacked by terrorists, especially domestic terrorists. . Go live in a padded fortress if you want, but don't make me stay there . For those that want Big Brother Bush to protect us, regardless of consequences, I have one question : Would you want the Clinton Administration (past or future) to hear everything you say, read everything you write, record everything you read , and watch your every move ? Not me . No thanks! Don't take anymore power than you would grant to your political opponents , IMO.
My biggest concern, as Werewolf suggests, is what happens to the Constitution as a whole , if part of it is rendered essentially moot . It sets a precedent for violation of the rest of it .
I suggest we ALL , regardless of political affiliation work together to stop this ( if that's your position) . Call &/or write your senators, and other senators , regardless of their party . Dodd said on the senate floor that it's helped him.Go to other sites ,even the "liberal" ones and offer support and suggestions . It's worked so far , albeit to a small degree . Have to try .
...his inherent racism, you wanna revise and extend your remarks, Sparky?
Not a request, and it'll be your next post.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Moe, I expressed no inherent racism. If you believe otherwise, I invite you to point out exactly what I said that was racist. (Failing that, I'm sure you'll just ban me.)
What I pointed out is the difference in amnesty, either for the telecoms or illegal aliens. We all know how republicans feel about amnesty for illegal aliens. They mouth words like "we can't reward those who break the law," yadda yadda yadda. But when the beneficiary of amnesty is a major US corporation, and the behavior in question was aiding a republican administration to consolidate power over its citizens, then suddenly the tough-on-crime republicans become enablers. Don't you find that interesting? (I guess not.)
"(Once again, how am I harmed by this spying if I did nothing illegal."
dingo, just saw your post , so have to put in another 2c.;D ( Sorry , but that argument is a pet peeve )
So what?
It's none of their @#!^%#%@ business, but if you need a reason..........
In my stints on jury duty , I noticed something that turned me ~180 on this and lawyers . The reaction was near unanimous among fellow jurors, and others I've talked to about their jury experiences . The job of law enforcement tends to make people suspicious . I noticed that when cops take statements , they usually paraphrase, using similar words , that have more sinister connotations. People are nervous , stressed, and just want to get out ASAP, so just sign it without really reading their statement , or considering the implications of the slight differences . When they get to court, they're hammered by one side or the other, made to look foolish, unreliable, &/or guilty , because of a word or three.
Now imagine this mindset being applied by someone monitoring everything you say or do . Or even worse , by somebody monitoring just isolated incidents of what you say and do . How would something perfectly innocent, but odd, and not easily explicable to an outside observer , be interpreted ? Now combine that with all the new (supposed ) powers ( unlimited detention, secret evidence, no habeus corpus, torture, etc). Has the makings of a real nightmare . There have been a lot of people exhonorated of their convictions , and probably a lot more still in prison . And that's with all the legal rights/options intact . If you fall into the terrorism black-hole..........?????
ps Try this :Imagine your last wilderness visit . ( Never ? You're missing out . look here http://www.summitpost.org and listen to "Cowboy Take Me Away " ( I know,... the Chicks probably aren't a favorite here , but it's about the music), specifically the line about ".. I want to be the only one for miles and miles...." Can you come back from THAT , and still stand the idea of somebody looking over your shoulder ,.... always,..... watching...? I can't.
Feel free to explain to the Directors why your defense of paulio was not meant to include the bit where he called us all racists. It should be a hoot.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Folks, your portray of this situation as those "weak on defense, politically conniving Democrats" versus the Republicans who only want to do what's best for us is inaccurate. It hasn't always been thus. For example, would any of you like to guess who wrote this?
===========================================
J. Edgar Hoover would have loved this. The administration wants government to be able to read international computer communications -- financial transactions, personal e-mail and proprietary information sent abroad -- all in the name of national security. . . .
Not only would Big Brother be looming over the shoulders of international cybersurfers, he also threatens to render our state-of-the-art computer software engineers obsolete and unemployed.
Granted, the Internet could be used to commit crimes, and advanced encryption could disguise such activity. However, we do not provide the government with phone jacks outside our homes for unlimited wiretaps. Why, then, should we grant government the Orwellian capability to listen at will and in real time to our communications across the Web? . . . .
The protections of the Fourth Amendment are clear. The right to protection from unlawful searches is an indivisible American value. . . .
Every medium by which people communicate can be exploited by those with illegal or immoral intentions. Nevertheless, this is no reason to hand Big Brother the keys to unlock our e-mail diaries, open our ATM records or translate our international communications.
===========================================
I know I'll certainly be banned for writing this (it's the only way Moe can appear to win an argument, and it probably makes up for other shortcomings). However, though I won't be able to reply, I invite you all to guess who the writer was. (Those of you who know how to use the internets can probably figure this out on your own.) I'm sure you'll be surprised!
You want to have your Special Time, you have to earn it. Hate speech, willfully disruptive commentary, homophobia, racism, religious bigotry, or a $50 contribution to the site; any one of those will do.
God, the cheapskates that you get today.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
How sad, paulio. How sad. Clown porn makes more sense as a sexual fetish.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I invite you all to guess, who said this?
===========================================
"Trust me" government is government that asks that we concentrate our hopes and dreams on one man; that we trust him to do what's best for us. My view of government places trust not in one person or one party, but in those values that transcend persons and parties. The trust is where it belongs -- in the people.
===========================================
It used to be conservatives that would be upset at having the federal government have this kind of entry into the details of our private lives.
It used to be conservatives that were concerned about protecting individual rights.
But now conservatives want to permit the government to data mine? Without a warrant? And let companies that data mined without a warrant to get a free pass from litigation? And if the data mining was perfectly legal then why do you need the amnesty?
Has the war on terror really made us all so squishy on allowing big government to conduct searches as much as possible?
I can understand the political aspect - Dems weak on terror/Republicans strong.
But if you study the history of totalitarian regimes, collecting information on citizens to the greatest extent possibly is a hallmark of totalitarian government. And do you relly want Hillary to have access to any conversations she pleases?