Senate Committee Votes to Authorize Warrentless Wiretapping 927
LividBlivet writes, "The Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill that not only authorizes, but extends, US warrentless wiretapping. No accountability. No oversight. No definition of 'terrorist.' No record of who voted for what. Great way to devolve a democratic republic into a fascist theocracy. Me worried? Yea." Here is the text of SB2453, the National Security Surveillance Act (PDF). Confusingly, the committee also voted out two other bills, one of which "all but declares the warrantless wiretapping illegal," according to Wired.
Bedtime for Democracy (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a quick rundown of SB 2453:
More information can be found at Unclaimed Territory [blogspot.com].
Re:but you shouldn't worry! (Score:4, Interesting)
The Eternal Value of Privacy -By Bruce Schneier [wired.com]
Re:A little bit OT, but (Score:5, Interesting)
I put the word in quotes for a reason in that the label "Islamofascist" is a marketing term developed by Rove and company to help define who the enemy is in this "Global War on Terrorism", better defined by General Abizaid as "The Long War".
OT: Abizaid gets it and understands what it is that we are dealing with with radical fundamentalism and is just the sort of person you want in the military.
Re:Vote! (Score:3, Interesting)
Close but not quite, you are missing a "y". Replace "our" by your.
To quote from one of my favourite books (The Man who was Thursday) "The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly. The rich have always objected to being governed at all".
Re:My Favorite Part of the PDF (Score:3, Interesting)
It's the checks and balances we're now missing.
Re:Vote! (Score:1, Interesting)
I am an American who (working for a foreign company) makes FREQUENT calls, faxes, and emails outside the US. Occasionally to people that might be in, or just returned from, companies the US isn't terribly happy with.
I will be voting FOR the people that are writing/passing this legislation, because I'm convinced that the "good guys" (and we ARE them, by & large) cannot win against an insidious, merciless, and determined enemy by being Dudley Do-Right and playing with one hand tied behind their back.
I couldn't care LESS if the government is reading my emails, listening to my telephone calls, or keeping me under direct surveillance, aside from being annoyed that they're wasting their time. Yawn.
No, I don't believe the sky is falling, EITHER.
This is like the FUD equivalent of Amway. Amway salespeople tell you about the thousands of people who have made million$, but they're still apparently pounding on your door to try to make a buck themselves.
The Left tells you about how the Constitution is in tatters, how the US has become a fascist state (usually a CHRISTIAN FASCIST state, I guess that's "really" bad), and how we're all oppressed...yet they continue to preach their FUD without being picked up and shipped (without trial, of course) to one of those CIA facilities themselves. Damn, that might be too bad a use for all those unmarked black helicopters if they're not too busy. They need to get working, then.
Re:Tin Foil Hat Brigade - UNITE! (Score:1, Interesting)
It is becoming politicized simply because one party controls the media, and the other controls the government.
Ahh...so I see you're trotting out the old 'liberal media' chestnut yet again. How cute.
Read this [huppi.com] to see why the myth of the 'liberal media' is exactly that...a myth with zero basis in fact.
The real problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Vote! (Score:5, Interesting)
Bzzt! Thanks for playing. [cornell.edu]
Even in wartime, if Congress passes a law saying that the President needs a warrant to conduct a wiretap, or saying that torturing prisoners is not allowed, or saying that every Master Sargeant in the army needs to wear a hat with a flashing blue light on top, the President has to suck it up and deal.
Wake up Americans please! (Score:5, Interesting)
I am Dutch, used to like the U.S., used to admire the core values that it stood for. I've spent more than a year in the States (in the late eighties), travelled through 35 states, and generally loved it, and its people. There is (used to be?) some kind of optimism, and absence of cynism with Americans, that you don't find in the Netherlands.
I don't go to the States much anymore, so the only thing I see is the news and sites such as this, but it seems to me that the U.S. has changed terribly for the worse. It seems to be a fear based society by now.
The U.S. used to be some kind of example to a lot of Europeans, but these days, not many think that way anymore. Anyway, I'm just rambling all over the place, but I really do hope that Americans change the course their society is heading, because right now the direction seems scary (Heinlein, "if this goes on?")
good luck, you'll need it
P.S. I hope Bush leaves at the next elections, but the way he's amending the Constitution, I'm not even sure about that :-(
Re:Vote! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Vote! (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
The problem with choosing the "best" fit is that neither may do a single thing to represent you as a voter. There may be no "best" candidate. Personally, I vote third party as a last resort. By the time I get to that point, either a third party candidate gets my vote or nobody does.
Between People inside US and Terrorism Suspects (Score:2, Interesting)
(1) After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush Authorized the National Security Agency to intercept communications between people inside the United States, including American citizens, and terrorism suspects overseas.
As far as I can remember (as a student of history) the President of the United States has ALWAYS had the ability to intercept foreign communications within the boarders of the United States (Remember Washington intercepted the communications of General Benedict Arnold and thus was able to stop him from turning over West Point to the British). The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was put in place by congress to make sure the rights of US citizens are protected.
The other side of Islamofascist is... (Score:2, Interesting)
It's very simple folks, just vote against ALL incumbents this year be they Democrat or Republican. Both sides are crooks and you need to have enough on each side to keep the other side "honest".
You should probably vote against the incumbent as a general rule anyway.
Re:A little bit OT, but (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:A little bit OT, but (Score:3, Interesting)
Soverign nation of Congress? (Score:2, Interesting)
Isn't this a description of our government? Just replace 'countries' with 'people'.
Re:A little bit OT, but (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless you're Catholic (like me), in which case your interpretation isn't considered absolute. Doing stuff the way some of these fundamentalists do it is one definition of 'heresy'.
'Course if The Church's interpretation is always absolute, we come full circle to Romanofascism?
On a side note, that "turn the other cheek thing" doesn't mean what people think it means. "by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality {or perhaps being defiant to the alledged authority much like a defiant child might involk further wrath}" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_the_other_cheek [wikipedia.org]
Re:Vote! (Score:3, Interesting)
That's funny, I could've sworn the USA PATRIOT Act was approved by the senate 98 to 1, with the 98 being almost 50/50 democrats and republicans.
Didn't I hear Howard Dean give a speech on how we 'need' national ID cards?
I agree, everything is going to hell, but if you want to start fixing it, the first step is to strike the word 'neocon' from your statement, and replace it with 'republicrat'.
They make you angry, they take your liberty, and then they convince you that only half of them are at fault: that's the nature of the 2-party system.
Vote Libertarian [lp.org].
Re:The real problem (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps, you should put a scarlet 'V' (Victim) on your forehead so that the rest of know that we should stay away from you.
No, he is a Citizen and a patriot.
You are a coward and should have a big "C" branded into your forehead.
I defy you to come up with a more canonical example of cowardice than how you just described yourself.
Coward.
Re:A little bit OT, but (Score:3, Interesting)
I take it to mean;
Islamofascism - the religious/cultural/political movement to establish fundamentalist Islamic rule, impose Sharia law, put all women into bhurkas and subject them to; no education, stay at home, and stoning for accused adultery, trading your daughter for a couple of goats, and hanging for accused homosexuals - you know, the whole nightmare story you read about. (as if rightwingers actually gave a crap about women's rights and gay rights).
They equate this with fascism, which isn't actually too far from the truth, because the broadest definition of fascism is "authoritarian ruling through force or threat of violence". However, most modern definitions of fascism include an element of corporatism, which frankly, isn't possible in an Islamic republic, because the entire economy is structured differently: strict interpretations of Islamic Law forbid charging interest for loans as Usury - which is really the essential element to any modern industrialized economic power.
"Islamofascist" is really a curious term, and a curious concept, because it exposes a problem in leftist thinking - that respect for other cultures and religions should trump respect for basic human rights of conscience. I don't think that all people who lean left, (or even who sit in the center) buy into that. Most lefties I know are appalled at the fundamentalist culture in Islam, but simply oppose use of force to change it. Some fairly brutal practices like wife-beating and female genital mutilation are deeply culturally ingrained in Islamic cultures (while not strictly being part of religious law itself - they're more like cultural traditions that were bolted on to the religion after the fact, by the men who "run the religion"; the imams who issue fatwas, etc.).
I don't think that the left can really effectively fight against the current rightwing stranglehold on power in the west, until it comes to grips with this cognative dissonance, and puts to rest the FUD that they're "objectively pro-terrorist". In fact, I think that if the representatives of the left (politicians, and other public figures) can make it clear that secularism is about human rights, and not about letting some other religion or way of thinking completely take over, then they can also begin to argue effectively that the things that westerners find objectionable about fundamentlist Islam, are also the same things that westerners should be finding objectionable about fundamentalist Christianity, or Judaism. What we're fighting for is peaceful coexistence, not a "clash of cultures". While the amount of global friction with fundamentalist Islamists is hard to deny, and convincing them to lay off on the "convert by sword" approach is going to be very difficult - an essential element is to convince our own radical militant fundamentalist Christians to lay off and coexist peacefully (and prosperously) as well.
'Waisted' votes have more per vote influence (Score:2, Interesting)
Here in Canada, the Reform party appeared and started stealing votes from conservatives. They never won, but merged with the conservatives and pulled the party far to the right. Those 'wasted' votes have had far more influence on our policies than the 'football' team voters who aren't influenced by policy.
Re:You gotta give a little to get a little. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:A little bit OT, but (Score:3, Interesting)
As I read it, the Falklands invasion was a bit of a desperate move by Galtieri. As the ruler of a military dictatorship, his position depended upon the prestige of the army. He felt his control beginning to slip - people no longer respected the Argentine military as perhaps they once had. So: pick a fight with a major power, but one so far away it probably won't make too much of a fuss, over a symbolically important but otherwise bloody useless scrap of rock.
Unfortunately for him, Thatcher's prestige was also on the slip at the time, and probably the best thing any British prime minister can ever do for their popularity is win a war.
Now, note what became of Galtieri's regime after losing the war with the UK. If you're basing your regime on military prestige and jingoism, whatever the hell you do don't lose a war. Now, take a look at Iraq. And for that matter at Afghanistan in recent months.
Oops.
Re:You gotta give a little to get a little. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I am tired of hearing this. (Score:3, Interesting)
Approval voting is less complicated than ranked voting, naturally, because it conveys less information. You only get to express a preference of one set over another set, and if your preferences are any more complicated than that, you're out of luck. I preferred Badnarik to Kerry to Nader to Bush in 2004 - clearly I should have approved of Badnarik and disapproved of Bush, but what do I do about the other two? Should I approve of Kerry to give him a better chance of beating Bush, or should I disapprove to give Badnarik a better chance of beating him? I'd have the same problem I do today: I'd have to check the preelection polls to figure out who I can "safely" vote for.
If you want to vote "yes" for half the candidates and "no" for the other half, Condorcet (another ranked voting method with fewer mathematical problems than IRV) will let you do that - but unlike Approval voting it'll let you do that without taking away other voters' right to express a more detailed preference.
Re:Vote! (Score:3, Interesting)
Or the exit polls don't represent who actually voted. For example if you take an exit poll during working hours you will get a different demographic than if you take it during the evening. So the exit polls that showed Kerry winning Ohio at 5 pm on election day had a disproportinate number of democratic voters (seniors, stay at home moms, unemployed, etc). A disproportionate number of republican voters voted after 5 pm.
There is another choice (Score:3, Interesting)
Sadly, even the dems seemed to shoot this idea down. I personally think that this must be a grassroot effort starting at a state level to make this happen.
Re:You gotta give a little to get a little. (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm Canadian too, and after reading your several previous posts of complete and utter bullshit I do hope you will stop representing your self as Canadian. It's fucking embarassing.
I can understand why they don't like him. He's a ultra-rightwing fucktard just like his counterpart to the south. And BTW, our troops are in Afghanistan, which I'm sure pisses off the extremists.
Holy argumentum in terrorem and blatant overgeneralization Batman!
And women connot become part of the Catholic clergy. What's your fucking point. Live and let live. Don't like it, don't fucking join them, but respect their right to practice their culture.
How the hell does that stand to reason? I'm poor, can I blow up your house? Newsflash: Muslim does not mean terrorist. Arabic does not mean extremist. The terrible actions of a few people cannot mean that everybody must give up their freedoms. What about this jackass that just shot up Dawson College? Littleton CO? Shall we wage a war on 'goths'? The amount of deaths by terrorism are statistically insignificant next to death from smoking cigarettes. Still totally legal. Automobile accidents...shall we outlaw cars? Heart disease from poor diets? McDonalds is still open and advertising their wares. What exactly do you think the war on terrorism is protecting us from? It sure as hell isn't to prevent our deaths. Sure, fight the Taliban. Fight Al-Queda. But don't fucking throw all our freedoms in the toilet in the process. I suppose you're one of those dinks that thinks it's all fair and good to force us to take a colon exam just to get on a fucking plane?
You know what: I want to live in a free society. I'll take the risk of getting wasted by a terrorist.