House Approves Warrantless Wiretapping 733
inKubus writes to mention an AP article about the approval of a warrantless wiretapping bill by the house. The legislation's goal would be to legitimize the wiretapping program President Bush previously authorized, with a few new restrictions. Despite this victory for the President, "Leaders concede that differences between the versions are so significant they cannot reconcile them into a final bill that can be delivered to Bush before the Nov. 7 congressional elections. The Senate also could vote on a similar bill before Congress recesses at the end of the week. For its part, the White House announced it strongly supported passage of the House version but wasn't satisfied with it, adding that the administration 'looks forward to working with Congress to strengthen the bill as it moves through the legislative process.'"
Re:Republicans! (Score:5, Interesting)
Amen to that. The question is, how do we take our country back from these yahoos?
I mean, I'm all for voting out the particular yahoos who decided this was a good idea and are telling me the government needs to spy on me without due process for my own safety. No question about that. But does that really effect long-term change in government and how it does things?
Voting for a third party is in the short term throwing your vote away. Is there any way for America as a country to get to a place where it wouldn't be? Is there a better way to bring about reform?
I love this country, but it kills me to see where it's going and what it's doing. There's got to be a way to fix it, but I don't know what that would be.
No, you're correct (Score:3, Interesting)
The Senate struck a deal and passed a near-identical bill yesterday, which is the horrifying piece. It appeared as though the two bills were going to be irreconcilable and we'd still have that Constitution thingie protecting us, but in the interest of politics they passed this.
They really have broken their oaths.
This is how I expect it went down:
Pollsters are showing that terrorism is an issue the Repubs "win" on - polls improve in their favor when they continuously harp on it. (as opposed to the War in Iraq, which DROPS their poll numbers)
Therefore, in the interests of the party, they pass this bill raping the concepts of checks and balances so they can . . .
Begin an attack-dog campaign demonizing Democrats as "cut and runners" and "soft on security" which is the only way they have any sort of a shot of maintaining control of Congress.
One News Cycle (Score:1, Interesting)
>
> [Amendment IV]
>
> does the smaller Government, individual liberty-touting Republican Congress NOT understand?
Don't worry. They'll start understanding it as soon as President Clinton II is elected in 2008, along with gaining the House and Senate. Her inaugural address will consist largely of thanking President Bush II for giving the her everything it ever wanted.
The really interesting question is how long her constituency remembers the Fourth after she's elected.
I'm betting on somewhere between 24-48 hours (about the length of one news cycle) before her constituents completely forget the quaint little piece of paper, and the Republicans start quoting Franklin. It takes a village to raise a living document, or some such.
Suggestion (Score:5, Interesting)
Normally I wouldn't say to vote for or against a candidate based on only one issue. But this bill is unconstitutional and anyone who voted for it is disregarding our rights and the constitution itself and is therefore unfit as a representative. Please vote accordingly.
that old gag (Score:5, Interesting)
But there should be oversight, at the very least a paper trail.
What I've Done (Score:4, Interesting)
I did that because it's what I'm supposed to do. This is how it's supposed to work. I feel a bit more satisfied but I still fear for my country. I urge each and everyone of you who are American citizens to do the same, whether you're for or against this bill.
Which one do I have the most faith in? My fellow citizens.
The rest could be hit by a bus and I wouldn't really care.
Re:Republicans! (Score:5, Interesting)
Before doing that, I suggest you go talk to the nearest rookie representative. You will discover that being a Congress Critter is not so easy.
Actually it is somewhat soul destroying. Idealism burns out very quickly once you figure out that you can't change anything without compromising.
Needless to say, I've talked with a rookie Congressman and have no urge to go into politics.
Why do you think that the Republicans, who are in the majority, are still complelled to call the Democrats "defeatocrats," "obstructionists," or "the party of cut and run"? Hint: it creates a situation where it is easier to force a favorable (R) compromise
Now we just counter with extra-strong encryption. (Score:5, Interesting)
Cat. Mouse. Cat. Mouse.
So now we just counter this illegal wiretapping (yes, its still illegal, even though they've passed a law that makes it "legal") with extra strong encryption and Civil [actupny.org] Disobedience [wikipedia.org].
Use TrueCrypt [truecrypt.org] with the AES-Twofish-Serpent [security-forums.com] algorithm on your PC (Linux, Mac or Windows). If you want to use something simliar on BSD, look into GELI [freebsd.org] encryption [gnu-designs.com] for those partitions.
For phones, you could look into encryption handsets [qmac.com] or telephone scramblers [spyworld.com]. There's this one [tccsecure.com] too, or the Cryptophone GSM Phone Encryption [cellular.co.za] solution. Google around, there's quite a few hundred solutions in this space... stack them together for even more security.
Disclaimer: I don't personally know how strong these algorithms are on these handsets, so use at your own risk.
With VoIP, you could easily layer whatever encryption you want on top of it. Bounce your call through a few foreign routers, run it through Privoxy [privoxy.org], Tor [eff.org] and i2p [i2p.net] and you should be good to go. Yes, it will incur some latency.. but I'd rather sacrifice speed for security or privacy, wouldn't you? Here is an article [linuxdevices.com] on securing VoIP. Worthwhile reading if you're using it or considering it.
Cat. Mouse. Cat. Mouse.
Now its OUR turn.
You take from us, we take back.
Re:Republicans! (Score:3, Interesting)
I would suggest that a better way to throw your vote away is to register for the incumbent party, make a point voting in the primaries. Far too many folks still think of a primary as a non-event, and yet complain that they don't have a good choice come the election.
You can still vote 3rd party in the final, even though you're registered as R or D.
And until things get shaken up at the primary level, not much else is likely to change (except more of that worthless piece paper being shredded in the rush to prove how patriotic congress is)
Okay with Wiretapping (Score:3, Interesting)
On top of this, when obtaining a valid warrant, a private citizen has the right to obtain, inspect, and dissemenate all of these conversations. And on top of this, government entities (FBI, CIA, auditing firms) have the right to these conversations at any time without a warrant, and may, at their discretion release any of this information to the public.
It goes both way. Have a nice day.
Republicans? No Fascists. (Score:3, Interesting)
Voting the rascals out only gives you a new set of rascals any more. And they are setting things up so that you can no longer take to the streets. This is an example of "death by 1000 cuts", only it's our civil liberties that they are cutting.
Go ahead, mark me as a troll or ignore me. But if you don't stand up now, tomorrow will be too late.
Re:Campaing finance reform + voting reform (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a simple reform - get rid of political ads on TV. It's long been established that broadcast media isn't as protected as print or speech - hence the lack of boobies on TV. The vast majority (or at least plurality) of campaigning budgets goes to TV ads. Most campaign finance reform goes after the supply - limiting how much donors can donate. That, to me, is a recipe for corrupt end runs around the law. This reform, on the other hand, would go after the demand side. Donors could give as much as they want - or at least as much as they can under the current rules - but the politicians wouldn't need them as much. That hopefully would mean that they would be more willing to represent the people, not the corporations. It would also even out the playing field for grassroots candidates, who have popularity but no war chest - the difference in funds wouldn't make as big of a difference on election day.
The problem with this reform is that you would need an act of congress - I don't see the FCC doing this on their own initiative.
Exhibit A (Score:3, Interesting)
Instead, many apologists said, in effect, "There's nothing new here, you've lost no rights, your country is just as proud and honorable as she's always been. The President and his well-heeled cronies are not digging up the founding fathers one by one, fucking them in the ass, pissing on their face, and re-burying them in a sewage field, and screaming, `This is *my* country now, fucker.'"
When, in fact, it was all true, every last bit of it.
Re:Just Say NO to Democrats with no solutions. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not going to make the terrorists that want to kill Americans go away. The US not doing anything during the 1990s didn't stop them from bombing the Cole or the first unsuccessful World Trade Center bombing. We didn't do anything then, and they just kept coming.
Hello, Mr. Goddamn Liar, nice to meet you.
The criminals who bombed the WTC in 1993 -- 6 months after Clinton took office -- are currently sitting in jail. They were captured, tried, and imprisoned.
At this point, a vote for a Democrat is just to stop everything is the "solution". That's the hope of a lot of those on the left
The solution of the left is to get the fuck out of Iraq. Seeing as how the longer we stay there, the worse things get, the more terrorists attacks there are, and the more this war costs, that seems like a good fucking idea to me. "STAY THE COURSE! CUT AND RUN!" I have an idea! Know what would fight terrorism! You hitting yourself in the hammer! Just once, mind you. Oh wait, that didn't stop terrorism? Try it again! In fact, KEEP trying it! It'll work! GEORGE BUSH said so!So you sorry pieces of shit keep pushing your memes. Maybe they'll stick. Maybe people will forget what a fascist sack of shit George Bush is. Then again maybe it'll turn around and bite you in the fucking ass because while you're all gung-ho over the GOP and parroting whatever it is that Fox tells you to, the values and treasure of your country are being willfully destroyed by those same people you so worshipfully defend.
Have a nice day, see you October 5th.
Re:Republicans! (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, it's up to us to figure out why they want this bill, and why they are willing to give away the constitution as toilet paper.
Mod parent up! (Score:5, Interesting)
A PLAN has things like:
#1. Milestones
#2. Budget
#3. Criteria for success
#4. Timeline
If we aren't hitting the milestones on time and on budget, then the plan needs to be re-evaluated and possibly dumped.
So far, all I've seen out of Bush and Co is:
#1. When we kill/capture Mr. X, things will improve.
#2. When the Iraqis do Y, things will improve.
So, an un-limited amount of money, to follow an un-known plan, to achieve un-stated objectives in the un-defined future.
How much money is too much to spend?
How many lives are too many to lose?
How long is too long to wait?
If you cannot answer those questions, then all you have is a fantasy.
Points. (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, on to the show.
"Appealing to fear isn't OK, ever."
Wrong. Appealing to an appropriate level of fear is a moral imperative if the fear is of a real threat. To watch someone face a real threat unbeknownst to them and not suggest to them that they should be afraid and do something about it would be morally unforgivable. What's at issue here is the "appropriate level of fear" that we should appeal to. The government suggests ZERO fear of them, and INFINITE fear of Al Qaeda, which runs not only counter to logic in the face of the size and reach of each, but also counter to actual history of abuse (the government having exercised more of it). The appropriate level of fear to which to appeal is likely a little bit in the case of Al Qaeda (about enough that you can call it "conscious awareness" but not much more) and a healthy portion in the case of the government (enough that you can call it "vigilance and a tendency toward activism" I should think).
"that's the same logic that the President is using to scare people into giving him power"
"logically fallacious bullshit"
It's not logically fallacious at all. You haven't pointed out the fallacy. It is not true that simply because the logic is incorrect in the case of the fear of terrorists, it must therefore also be incorrect in the case of the fear of government abuse. This is because the terrorists are not the government, ergo, an argument about the relative power of the government does not become fallacious simply because a similarly structured argument about the relative power of the terrorists is found to be fallacious.
And the terrorists are not the government. How about a thought experiment:
You post two things on the Yahoo! News discussion board that are not explicit threats. One would make Osama Bin Laden want to kill you if he found out about it, and the other would make Bush want to kill you if he found out about it.
In the case of OBL:
- Osama would likely never find out about it, as he'd have to stumble across it on the 'net during one of his marathon Yahoo! News-reading sessions
- If he did by some obscene cosmic conicidence find out about it, he'd gnash his teeth a lot at the fact that he had no idea where you lived or who you are
- Even if he somehow managed (and this boggles the mind) to find out who you are and where you lived, he'd still have a logistical exercise in trying to set up a hit on you here from all the way over there
- In truth, no matter how angry at you he was, he'd never bother, because it isn't worth the expense, complexity, or small potential reward of carrying out the exercise when compared to the risk of its failure
In the case of Bush:
- Given what we know now, it's likely in the national system the moment you post it, filed under "possible subversive, open up a file on him"
- Given corporate willingness to bow to government requests for data, they'd likely have your real name and address if they wanted it within a day or two, if not sooner
- Given the torture bill that just passed yesterday, they could decide that you are now an enemy combatant and can be picked up and tortured; the moment they decide this, you are legally outside the jurisdiction of U.S. courts
- Now all that remains is for them to pick you up; a simple matter, just phone the local police and have them deliver you to the feds
- You are gone forever
That is the difference that makes one source of fear minor (terrorists) and the other source of fear major (government). You have made the mistake of assuming that the structure of an argument was invalid on its face
Here are facts and here's why it matters (Score:3, Interesting)
A constitutional lawyer named Glenn Greenwald wrote a book which explains the legal and constitutional issues behind some Bush Administration policies.
He used to be apolitical, I mean really apolitical, to the point of not even voting. Then, over the last five years, he's been jolted into action by "theories of unlimited Presidential power which are wholly alien, and antithetical, to the core political values that have governed this country since its founding" (from the preface).
He was living and working in Manhattan on September 11 and eagerly backed the first initiatives against the terrorists. But then, "What first began to shake my faith in the administration was its conduct in the case of Jose Padilla
HISTORY
Congress has cooperated with open requests for surveillance powers. The Combatting Terrorism Act passed without hearings or debate, allowing the FBI to tap Internet communications for 48 hours without a warrant. Congess amended the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to give the executive branch more flexibility. That was part of USAPATRIOT, which many Congressmen voted for without reading it, trusting the administration to do the right thing in a national emergency. Bush said it was adequate: "This new law I sign today will allow surveillance of all communication used by terrorists". In the same month he ordered the NSA to begin violating the law by spying without even the minimal judicial oversight of the secret and pliable court that oversees FISA taps.
FISA, the 1978 act triggered by scandal after scandal, passed with Republican support including senators like Orrin Hatch. It worked throughout the Cold War, the first Gulf War, and many smaller conflicts. It has specific provisions for use in wartime which still require eventual judicial review.
THE ISSUE ABOUT WIRETAPPING
So why break the law? Greenwald points to the answer: "The only difference between obeying and violating FISA is that compliance with the law ensures that a court is aware of who is being eavesdropped on and how the eavesdropping is being conducted". In a March 2006 reply to Congressional questions the administration admitted that their purpose was to change who made the decisions about probable cause and to eliminate "layers" of review. Certainly the judges weren't getting in the way of normal or even questional eavesdropping: court intern Jonathan Turley said "I was shocked
IS IT ABOUT MAKING US SAFER?
Yaser Esam Hamdi was a US citizen when he was thrown into solitary confinement for two years without being told what he was accused of. It could have been for life, given the likely duration of the "war on terror". The Supreme Court eventually gave the administration a put-up-or-shut-up order, with even Scalia chiming in with "The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite detention at the will of the Executive". So what was done with this man who was allegedly too dangerous to be allowed to see a lawyer? He was released without charge and sent to Saudi Arabia.
Torture isn't making us safer either. Former CIA officer Bob Baer told reporters it's "bad interrogation, I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture's bad enough". Torture is where the "evidence" against Jose Padilla came from.
PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY
Is the President above the law? His legal adviser John Yoo says so. He told New Yorker report Jane Mayer that Congress "can't prevent the President from ordering torture".
The legal theorists who are defining what a Commander in Chief can do have set forth theories that recognize
Conspiracy??? (Score:4, Interesting)
And unlike the 9/11 conspiracy, this only involved one person, which means it would have been INFINITELY easier to set this up and keep quiet...
Re:Why is this so complicated? (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is that this isn't monitoring calls to a specific individual. The leaks have indicated that calls to anyone in certain regions are being monitored. Do you know what it takes to get put on the 'terrorist watch' list or the 'suspected terrorist ties' list? I don't, and I'm not certain there are any rules. From what I can tell, if you've donated to a charity that has provided food/education/supplies anywhere in the Middle East in the last 10 years, you are eligible. If you work for one of them, then you're probably on it. If it's affiliated with a Muslim organization in the middle east, make it a certainty. If the rules the NSA wants to follow were applied to regular law enforcement, everyone would be under 24 hour surveilance in case we called Bob 4 states over who's brother was once convicted of passing around a joint at a Grateful Dead concert, in order to try & get a joint of our own.
Why is it complicated? Because, it takes everything we tout to the rest of the world as our greatest asset (our Freedom & Civil Liberties), and says they don't apply. Yes, sometimes you have to perform surgury to remove a tumor. However, I don't recall anyone ever recommending that the surgical process include shooting the patient in the head to limit the amout of blood in the field. FISA is surgury, it's clear, it's tight, and it makes certain that the rules are followed. This new bill & the current NSA program are just the result of the neighborhood butcher trying to perform surgery but not wanting to take the time/make the effort to do it right.
Re:What I've Done (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What I've Done (Score:2, Interesting)
Is it already too late? Has anyone evaluated cell phone/PDAs for back doors? For example, is there an API that allows the service provider to download my VPN shared secret. This would be a great research project.
I think we need a separate law that assigns unlimited liability to anyone installing back doors or requiring their installation. If our leaders could be held personally responsible for the consequences of their bills, maybe they wouldn't be so quick to pass them. I guess I'm dreaming that such a bill could pass.
I just send a note to my representative stating my displeasure with his vote and that I'd never vote for him again.
October is going to be a long month.
Re:Republicans? No Fascists. (Score:5, Interesting)
The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism by Dr. Lawrence Britt
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14-defining characteristics common to each:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fas
Re:Congrats on your +5, insightful (Score:4, Interesting)
True. But let's look at your argument again, with a few words changed.
"How personal effects translates into a letter that leaves your home, travels with an agent authorized by the federal government and possibly a private carrier contracted by the government, crosses federal land or at the very least land not owned by you, is beyond me."
And yet, the Supreme Court has ruled that the mail is subject to 4th amendment protections.
Re:So what are you going to do? (Score:3, Interesting)
Pretty much, except that in the absence of a strong third-party candidate, #1 is throwing your vote away, #2 will get you thrown in jail, #3 will get you thrown in Gitmo, and #4 will get you permanently branded a nutjob.
There is a third possibility, though. We could join together and create a new party for the common good. Let's not mince words. We should pick a name that by definition sets it apart as being a good party to vote for, implicitly suggesting that the other parties are an abomination. Possibly the Rational Party, the Good Party, the Intelligent Party, or the Competent Party.
Next, we need a platform. Here's a start:
The RGIC Party vows to end government corruption by phasing out all private funding for political campaigning by 2030. The RGIC Party has six primary platforms:
More on the platform later.
Vote for me for President in 2012.
Re:Vote 3rd Party (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, if the Dems keep losing to the Republicans due to third party voters, it will ultimately effect a change in the Democratic party-- they will get so tired of losing that they'll start looking for new and better strategies or fade further into irrelevancy. If they try to be more like the Republicans in order to steal votes away from them, they become more and more indistinguishable and provide more impetus for third parties. If they try to be more like some of the third parties to steal away those votes, then a change has been effected in opening up the Democratic party. Third party pressure to the right would have the same effect on the Republicans, but the Republicans are already so far right that the only more-right third parties are likely to be ultra-wackos. Third parties on the left on the other hand, are plentiful and are likely to be more mainstream as the Dems move right in order to capture the Republican borderline. It's the old squeeze play, and frankly the Dems have made such a poor showing of it that they are deservedly in big trouble, IMHO. They are in a lose-lose situation-- if they lose the election they lose, but if they win the election, they have to clean up the mess. And then no matter what they do it's easy to make them look really bad in the process-- either they continue with the current unpopular occupation plan, or pull out of Iraq and leave a vacuum for insurgencies to fill. If the Dems were smart, they wouldn't want the office of President right now, but they're not that smart-- they'll take up the challenge, the mess will continue and they'll get much of the blame for whatever happens.
And there are other problems looming-- Iran's nukes, shortage of available troops (the draft?), North Korea, the deficit. It's too soon to take responsibility for all this away from the Republicans-- that's too easy for them. They made the mess and should take more responsibility for it. Right now, they're only barely being forced to admit that a mess is there-- itself a major breakthru as they avoid any chance of admitting mistakes like the plague (a real Bad Thing in a government, BTW). The only thing voting for the Dems in November will do, if they win you punish the Republicans for being such dimwits-- but you also punish the Dems by making them clean up the impossible mess-- not a bad thing in itself but it then makes it far easier for the Republicans to gain it all back next time via blaming the Dems for the results.
Moderate Republicans actually have the best chance in November, and even if you generally dislike Republicans (as I do), it doesn't hurt to reward the moderates over the reactionaries. No, there couldn't be a better time to vote third party right now...