Telecoms Amnesty Fiasco --They Are ALL Crooks

[Dr Dave]

From Glen Greenwald today: (emphasis added)

There's a temptation, particularly on days like today, to talk about what motivates "Democrats" -- as though they're a monolith acting collectively with the same drives. They're not. Some do what they do because their only concern is a craven desire to be re-elected. Others believe in one thing but are afraid to vote that way (because they'll be called Soft on Terror, Liberal, etc.), while others still are influenced by Beltway money and other cultural pressures. Some are motivated by a combination of those motives.

But a large number of elected Democrats vote in favor of the radical Bush agenda for a very simple reason: they believe in it. Despite the glorious "D" after their name, their views are materially indistinguishable from the defining ones of the Bush faction on the key issues. A huge portion of Congressional Democrats are members of the corrupt, bipartisan Beltway political establishment first, and everything only follows that, and they thus embrace and support the values of that establishment.

That's why Bush has won and -- even with "Democrats in control of Congress" -- continues to win most key votes. The fault lines in the Beltway aren't primarily between Republican and Democrat but between those who support the core values of our political establishment (as reflected by the Bush administration) and those who don't. Through a bulging coalition of both Democrats and Republicans, the pro-establishment forces have a strong, clear and easy majority, and that's why the most radical Bush measures continue not only to prevail, but -- as today -- do so easily.

----------------------

Read the whole depressing thing here.

[patricia]

It's like when a man/woman who formerly carried a lunchbox to work suddenly becomes rich because a rich relative left him/her money, or he/she wins the Lottery.
He/she forgets that there are people still existing who are still living the way he/she did.
He/she becomes part of the new circle of the powerful.
Politicians hang around with other politicians who are the new monarchy, apart from regular people.
They forget that their lifestyle is financed by regular people and they start to believe that their little world is all there is and that it can't end for them as long as they curry favour with those who hold power.

It's up to the people who elected them to jolt them back to reality.

[Monte Smith]

I hate the phone companies. At least I hate Verizon. But Congress here made the right choice. Even the Dem contingent were able to pick up the clue phone. Sorry about your continued mental suffering, Dave.

[Al in NYC]

Flushing yet more of the Constitution, and our rights, down the drain. No one will be held accountable for all that's been done, no one will own up to it, and no one - Republican or Democrat - wants to give up these powers once they've been given to them. Rightness and American tradition be damned. History will not look kindly on all those who've enabled this travesty and so many others like it, including ourselves as a complacent public.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Al

Flushing yet more of the Constitution, and our rights, down the drain. No one will be held accountable for all that's been done, no one will own up to it, and no one - Republican or Democrat - wants to give up these powers once they've been given to them.

Amen to that, Brother!!

[patricia]

The lust for power has no political affiliation and it is up to the people to take back control of their country.
Our citizens cannot allow the chipping away of the cornerstones of either of our countries through our own complacence.
The alternative is tyranny and don't ever think that any politician will be the one to say "whoa, I don't want my party to be able to do whatever they like."
These days the only log on the road is the will of the people, if they only realized that it's up to them to rein in those who would run roughshod over them.
Scary times.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

I hate the phone companies. At least I hate Verizon. But Congress here made the right choice. Even the Dem contingent were able to pick up the clue phone. Sorry about your continued mental suffering, Dave.

You're right, Monte. The Fourth Amendment was always a piece of shit, anyway.

[Gary Sisco]

Not to mention the First, Second and Fifth.

I've always considered both parties responsible and the dems didn't exactly go along reluctantly with anything, not that reluctance would have mattered. You can't oppose (or even profess to oppose) anything by going along with it.

Also, the making *permanent* of measures originally called "emergencies" happened under a dem-party-controlled congress, not the repub.

Very clearly, large numbers of dems in office have supported the admin more consistently than they normally support one of their own.

Actions speak louder than words for everyone, dem party included.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

The Fourth Amendment was always a piece of shit, anyway.

A piece of shit! I dunno, I think it is more elastic than that. I think the government might have reasonable cause to collect signals information on calls to and from the Hindu Kush during a war against jihadis without it upsetting permanently the foundations of the Republic. But that's just my opinion.

[Gary Sisco]

Yeah, it is. That "reasonable" is of course a slippery word and subjectively interpreted, whoever interprets.

Vermont's constitution (I use it as an example because it's still the same constitution since 1776) very pointedly doesn't use it.

I once went to hear a retired Vermont Supreme Court justice give a lecture at the university on the state constitution. The first thing he did was hold up one by one things he considered required reading for anyone wishing to understand its history. The first thing he raised was Bookchin's essay on its being a constitution worth preserving. I was amazed he was even aware of it but he had it in its original pamphlet form. After he was done speaking, we had a conversation about what he thought about random roadblocks for DWIs (which of course become roadblocks for other than DWI at the same time -- in short, they are random roadblocks, period) in respect to search and seizure rights. He said he thought they were entirely unconstitutional in VT and had waited for years for someone to bring a case before the Court. No one ever did.

What's reasonable to one way of thinking is outrageous to another, inescapably.

This to ignore altogether that the bushwits permanent emergency measures have almost entirely been aimed at American citizens in practice, and purposefully.

To wit: the NSA has *always* monitored communications traffic into and out of the US. In short, the gubmint already had been monitoring what most people would think reasonable. Most people, however, are more, um, reasonable than Bushwit, not to mention Obersturmbannfuhrer Cheney.

[Gary Sisco]

Sometimes I hate it when my representatives vote the correct way.

No one to bitch out, dammit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Almost as bad as having them vote the wrong way.

[rollhead]

I am frustrated, too. I supported a long-shot Democrat in the heavily Republcian congressional district where I live. She won, and now votes lock-step with the other Dems in Congress. What's my choice? Vote for the next nutbar that the Republicans put up here? No. I will pinch my nose and vote for her again.

[Gary Sisco]

They'll continue being repub lite so long as the people allow them to get away with it. They'll have to feel some pain for that to happen, though. So far, they haven't, at least since 1968. Humphrey's loss was to a large extent payback for not coming out against the war and also for the Chicago police riots. A lot of people stayed home in '68. They also felt betrayed by LBJ because they voted for him because of Goldwater's ravings about bombing Vietnam back into the Stone Age -- only to have LBJ sit in for Goldwater.

[Ron Thorne]

		"The Single Largest Invasion of Privacy in American History." Tell the House: Stand Up for the Rule of Law The House of Representatives still has a chance to stop retroactive immunity in conference -- but only if House leadership stands tall for their version of wiretapping reform legislation. Yesterday the Senate rejected the amendment offered by Senators Dodd and Feingold to strip retroactive immunity from the Intelligence Committee's wiretapping reform bill. It went on to pass the Intelligence Committee's bill by a wide margin. As a progressive organization that lives inside of a very good mobile phone company this fight was personal. We know that a telecom company should never, ever help the White House wiretap Americans without a warrant. And AT&T and Verizon should know that, too. Together we've fought long and hard against retroactive immunity for the telecom companies that helped Bush spy illegally on Americans. Hundreds of thousands of citizens like you stood up and told their Senators that we expect them to defend the rule of law. Sadly, it seemed that the deck was always stacked against us in the Senate. But the fight isn't over yet. Last fall, the House passed the RESTORE Act, a FISA reform bill that included solid oversight of domestic surveillance and did not contain retroactive immunity. Now, because the House bill is so different from the legislation that the Senate just passed, there will be a conference between leaders of the House and the Senate to decide what legislation both bodies will put forward for the President to sign. We need Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer to stand tall and ensure that the conference committee reports legislation that doesn't include retroactive immunity. Take action and tell Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer to stand up for the rule of law. During this fight we saw what can happen when hundreds of thousands of Americans come together to work with Senators like Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold, advocacy organizations, liberal bloggers, and, yes, a phone company that wants to ensure that the laws governing privacy and civil liberties are always followed. Three out of the four committees in Congress that have worked on this FISA legislation have rejected retroactive immunity. Please join in one last time and ask the House leadership to stand by their good work and report a bill that doesn't include retroactive immunity. Click here to tell the House leadership -- stand firm, no retroactive immunity for lawbreakers. Thank you for being an inspiration to me throughout this fight. Michael Kieschnick, Co-Founder CREDO Mobile / Working Assets P.S.: If you are supporting AT&T and Verizon and want to consider stopping, then check this out.

[Monte Smith]

Credo. Why does that name ring a bell?

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

I think the government might have reasonable cause to collect signals information on calls to and from the Hindu Kush during a war against jihadis without it upsetting permanently the foundations of the Republic. But that's just my opinion.

You have to ask yourself, though, why not just get warrants if the necessity is so glaringly obvious? I can understand the phone companies giving in without a fight-they depend on access to public airwaves, which are owned by (drumroll) the US government. I can't understand why nobody would even try to get a warrant before going all KGB on the phone lines.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

You have to ask yourself, though, why not just get warrants if the necessity is so glaringly obvious? I can understand the phone companies giving in without a fight-they depend on access to public airwaves, which are owned by (drumroll) the US government. I can't understand why nobody would even try to get a warrant before going all KGB on the phone lines.

I think they are sweeping far too much information to get warrants. I think they probably have programs that monitor signals globally. I hope they do. But if someone wants to get a warrant and play good cop, I have no problem with that. Surely the Dems are our advocates here. Snicker.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Credo. Why does that name ring a bell?

Stupidass Montessa.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

I think they are sweeping far too much information to get warrants.

??

I don't think you need a warrant for every phone call.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

??

I don't think you need a warrant for every phone call.

Well then.

[Dr Dave]

The issue is not "getting a warrant for every phone call."

Greenwald:

The Washington Post's Dan Froomkin cites the primary justification for telecom amnesty -- that these companies were just doing what they were told by the Government -- and then asks rhetorically: "isn't that the very definition of a police state: that companies should do whatever the government asks, even if they know it's illegal?" I used to think that amnesty supporters held their position because they didn't understand this extremely simple point, but now I think that most of them have their position precisely because they do understand it. A lawless "police state" -- and that's the only term that can be used to describe what this bill creates -- is exactly what our political establishment desires.

[Gary Sisco]

I have to ask myself, If there's a terrorist in every bathroom like there once was Bolsheviks, why don't they make some arrests? Have some trials. With evidence. I mean, all of that intelligence they've been gathering via these extraordinary measures, hey. If they're monitoring jihad terrorist communications from and into the US, I mean. You'd think they'd want to do something but monitor. Hell, this is all we get for several trillion dollars of deficit spending?

They could learn how to speak and read Arabic, for one, not to mention the thirteen languages used in Afghanistan, a-and ...

The guvmint notoriously has almost no one working for it who can speak these languages.

Are the jihadists cooperating by speaking and writing English or what?

Fucking load of bullshit.

The entire reaction to 9/11 has been irrational but even more irrational is cementing a mental defective's self-granted emergency powers into permanent American law -- something that was not done in all of the historical examples of constitutional violations and betrayals that are often marched out as if violations of the past universally recognized as having been wrong are some sort of justification for those of the present.

[Al in NYC]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

I have to ask myself, If there's a terrorist in every bathroom like there once was Bolsheviks, why don't they make some arrests?

What in the world do you mean? They got that nefarious and deeply dangerous terrorist Tarik Shah. Who knows what kind of evil and secret terrorist messages he was spreading through his bass playing! And, of course, you could really hurt someone with an instrument that size too. Who knows what kind of havoc he could have spread, endangering America's peace and safety, by opening those terrorist training camps with the huge amounts of money he'd earned from intermittent jazz gigs,

...and they didn't have to speak no stinkin' Arabic in the months they spent uncovering his eeevil plans.

[Gary Sisco]

Fuckin' right, partner.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

OK, let me get this straight. Bush goes on TV and says that he will veto the new FISA law if the telecoms aren't granted immunity for breaking past laws. However, the House version that doesn't grant immunity contains all the other shit Bush wants in the bill.

So in other words, Bush was willing to put the security of the US at risk to protect the telecoms from law suits. Protecting big business was more important to him than protecting the US.

Or maybe he knows that the threat from terrorism isn't as great as he's been hyping it. Maybe he knows that all the pre-9/11 laws that were on the books were sufficient to protect our borders. Maybe the problem was his administration ignored all the warnings from the previous administration about Bin Laden and his group of wacky funsters because they came into office determined to be the Anti-Clintons.

By the way, the Senate punking out was no surprise. After all, the telecoms have one of the most powerful lobbies on the Hill.

[Gary Sisco]

It's traditional for fascists to favor laws that make past behavior legal.

Shit, the FBI had the 9/11 team under surveillance.

This bunch of loons and morons-in-charge would be the funniest thing in history if they weren't up to their ears in blood.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

It's traditional for fascists to favor laws that make past behavior legal.

Shit, the FBI had the 9/11 team under surveillance.

This bunch of loons and morons-in-charge would be the funniest thing in history if they weren't up to their ears in blood.

Speaking of books about the 9/11 Commission, there is an interesting book about the composing of the final report on the shelves now.
It's called "The Commission" by Philip Zelikow and it talks about the extraordinary measures that were taken when putting together the published report in order not to assign blame.
I know that I've taken a lot of flack suggesting that there was a Part II of the 9/11 report that was promised, after the 2004 Election. It was thought that any blame assignment would prejudice the then-upcoming Election. No Kidding.
It was supposed to explain what went wrong and who was responsible for the mishandling of the intelligence available, pre-9/11.
I suppose this book is as close as we'll come to knowing that and it is interesting in that along with the usual suspects, it mentions people who weren't in the news but were charged with the task of monitoring and reporting information regarding threats.
In any case, the book is out there.

[Dr Dave]

Greenwald gets it wrong!

"Outside of National Review, K Street, and the fear-paralyzed imagination of our shrinking faux-warrior class, there is no constituency in America demanding warrantless eavesdropping or amnesty for lawbreaking telecoms."

Clearly, that is wrong. There's still Monte. And Jeffrey, I guess. A small constituency, but a constituency nonetheless.

Have a nice day, you two. And always check under your bed for Islamofacists before turning out the light.

[Gary Sisco]

Finally, a flicker of brainpower and life under the lamest ever lame duck.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0215/p25s09-uspo.html

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Finally, a flicker of brainpower and life under the lamest ever lame duck.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0215/p25s09-uspo.html

I had to laugh at Bush's comment that not passing this would "reopen dangerous gaps in our intelligence."
"OUR" intelligence?? Speaking for himself, I think that train has left the station a long time ago.