digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

The new FISA compromise: it's worse than you think

arstechnica.com — With the Senate set to vote on FISA amendments this week, Ars examines the legislation's key provisions and finds that it would undermine judicial oversight of foreign-to-domestic communications.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • DarKnyht, on 07/08/2008, -4/+104New strategy. No left or right, democrat of republican, just vote all of them out of office and start over again. If the new batch doesn't do what we want, we vote them out again (and never let them back in office). Perhaps having multiple politician's careers ended at terminal velocity enough times will wake them up to the fact they work for us and not corporations.
    • swrostmore, on 07/08/2008, -1/+16Why not learn how your representatives actually voted, and then base your vote on whether their position is in agreement with yours?
      • displacednomad, on 07/08/2008, -3/+14http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h200 ...
        NE - Fortenberry, Terry, Smith (R, R, and R) voted for, for, and for.

        All three Reps from NE voted out of agreement with me.

        And not voting: Ron Paul. I think less of him everyday.
      • homah, on 07/09/2008, -0/+9displacednomad:

        Blame the system, not Paul. The bill was slipped in with less than 24 hours of notice. Even if you aren't a fan of Paul, surely you must concede that he hasn't been one to dodge a vote because he holds an unpopular position. He has been on many the "wrong" side of a 424-1 vote.
      • 0nslaught, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6"Madam Speaker, I regret that due to the unexpected last-minute appearance of this measure on the legislative calendar this week, a prior commitment has prevented me from voting on the FISA amendments. I have strongly opposed every previous FISA overhaul attempt and I certainly would have voted against this one as well."
        http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2008/cr06 ...
      • PopcornDave, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2While that's a good idea, if they've been there for more than 2 terms then they need to leave regardless. The longer they are in Washington, the deeper their roots grow and it's harder to get them pulled out.
    • yellowcakewalk, on 07/08/2008, -1/+11Here in Maryland, Sen Ben Cardin is voting against the FISA treason. Sen Barbara Mikulski is planning to vote FOR the treason. Both claim to be democrats.
      • didiman, on 07/09/2008, -16/+1haha treason, you need to join the real world. At least you diggers are good for a laugh.
      • USNavyBlue, on 07/09/2008, -2/+3Sen Barbara Mikulski - is a piece of crap along with Hoyer. Hoyer is OWNED by AIPAC. Look up the amount of money they filled his coffers with!!!!!!!!!!!
    • borez, on 07/08/2008, -1/+18Good idea, but IMO... Governments, never have and never will work for the people. They're here for one reason and one reason only, to rape you for as much of your money and/or as much of your liberty as they can get away with.

      From Republics to Democracies to Communism to Socialism, it's all the same controlling ***** just dressed up in a different set of rules.
    • MasterThief117, on 07/09/2008, -3/+15If voting ever changed anything, it would have been outlawed.
      I think we should just grab out guns and rush the White House and start a new revolution.
      • PopcornDave, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3You'd have better luck storming Congress as that's where the check and balance needs to be fixed. I'm not saying that the White House doesn't need to be fixed as well, but you're talking 1 or 2 people as opposed to 535.
    • Veni_Vidi_Vici, on 07/09/2008, -2/+9You plan is mostly correct, but you must exclude a few such as kucinich, paul and ~20 others in the house who support bush impeachment.
    • InetRoadkill, on 07/09/2008, -0/+9Surprise! Surprise! After shepherding this sack of ***** bill thru the Senate, Harry Reid has now announced at the last second that he's against it. What a crock of *****, especially since he voted to kill the filibuster on this bill that would have stopped it.

      This move was expected. There's going to be more democrats making a public fuss about how terrible this bill is and how they'll vote against it even though they know it's too late to stop it. The real vote came during the cloture vote where only a handful of democrats voted to sustain the filibuster. If your Senator voted for cloture, then he voted to strip you of your rights. Be sure to thank him in November.
    • carterartist, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3I SO agree!!
    • Shellius, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1That's the way it's always supposed to work and never does. Americans find it too hard to take a stand on anything. We need to stop voting for people who throw our rights in the garbage and sorry to say to all the "progressives" out there that are not really progressive at all -- that includes your darling Obama. He voted to crap on our 4th amendment rights and all I have heard since then is excuses.
      Try this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ncgEzmseZtc
  • dacodanelson, on 07/08/2008, -17/+18Drat and curses. I have a feeling legislation like this is going to go a long ways until finally there is public outrage. This could lead to either an open revolt and Vietnam like protestations, or a sort of prohibition type of shady internet providers rather than the old bootleggers.

    But more importantly: IF RON PAUL WERE PRESIDENT, THIS WOULD NEVER HAPPEN. And I stick by that until the day I die. Ron Paul 2008!
    • DreKor, on 07/08/2008, -5/+9True. If Ron Paul were president we would be wishing for the good old days of Comcast's stellar customer service.
    • swrostmore, on 07/09/2008, -4/+14This legislation already passed in the House of Representatives.

      Ron Paul WAS NOT PRESENT TO CAST A VOTE.
      • 0nslaught, on 07/09/2008, -2/+6That's only because they rushed the bill through while he wasn't there.
        http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2008/cr06 ...
      • ironhide, on 07/09/2008, -2/+50nslaught, the net knew it was coming for days in advance, you saying Paul couldn't catch a plane back? Weak.
      • ironhide, on 07/09/2008, -5/+2Awww, did I hit a nerve you idiotic Paulbot? You guys are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites.
      • 0nslaught, on 07/09/2008, -3/+5Ron Paul is to blame that most of the government rushes it through while he isn't even there? Weak. Next you'll be blaming him for not donning a Superman cape and stopping everyone else's corruption all over the country.

        First, people complain that all he does is show up to vote against bills. So while he is out influencing people to vote more in line with the Constitution then they complain he isn't doing the former.

        "That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime." --Obama
        "The bill has changed. So I don't think the security threats have changed, I think the security threats are similar. My view on FISA has always been that the issue of the phone companies per se is not one that overrides the security interests of the American people." --Obama

        So, you criticize someone who wasn't available to vote on the bill while supporting someone who said he is going to support it? Very weak. I guess it's unfortunate Ron Paul doesn't break his promises like Ob... Oh, wait, that's not unfortunate at all.

        Glenn Greenwald, Salon.com: "In the past 24 hours, specifically beginning with the moment Barack Obama announced that he now supports the Cheney/Rockefeller/Hoyer House bill, there have magically arisen -- in places where one would never have expected to find them -- all sorts of claims about why this FISA "compromise" isn't really so bad after all. People who spent the week railing against Steny Hoyer as an evil, craven enabler of the Bush administration -- or who spent the last several months identically railing against Jay Rockefeller -- suddenly changed their minds completely when Barack Obama announced that he would do the same thing as they did. What had been a vicious assault on our Constitution, and corrupt complicity to conceal Bush lawbreaking, magically and instantaneously transformed into a perfectly understandable position, even a shrewd and commendable decision, that we should not only accept, but be grateful for as undertaken by Obama for our Own Good."

        A good definition of 'weak'.^

        "Before you Obamatards start bitching about Ron Paul missing votes... reality is a bitch...

        Missed Vote Percentage:

        Obama - 42.7% (253 votes missed)
        McCain - 61.0% (361 votes missed)
        Paul - 26.8% (429 votes missed)

        'nuff said..."
      • ironhide, on 07/09/2008, -3/+3Nice wall of text you halfwit. Where did I say I supported Obama? I think he's a jerk for voting for this bill but you Paulbots have no leg to stand on since your lord and master didn't deign to vote.
      • 0nslaught, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2Well, 'halfwit', since you asked . ..

        "Where did I say I supported Obama?"

        You've come to his defense numerous times. That would qualify as some sort of support, wouldn't it?

        ironhide:
        ", and the answer to your question is no. Quite frankly that's the only answer your ilk should get from Obama. It's certainly the only one you're getting from me."

        "masterm1nd, there is nothing for Obama to explain. Every so-called "crisis" has been blown out of porportion by people like you."

        "No, the bottom line is that you're a fool. What Obama did was akin to a doctor amputating part of a patient's body in order to save his life. It's still bad but it's better than the alternative."

        "you=imbicile Or did you miss the the front page story where Deval Patrick stated that he gave Obama permission to use his speech."

        "Napoleone's top 10 complaints about Obama: 1. He isn't Ron Paul"

        But you in no way support Obama, right? I'm sure it's just an odd coincidence that every Obama comment of yours (until now) is either indifferent or supportive yet every comment concerning Ron Paul is an attack. It is true though that trolling in Ron Paul articles, and just name-calling/trolling in general seem to be your main goal, though..

        "News flash, insulting people won't get them to see your point of view...oh and by the way, go ***** yourself."

        Regardless, now that you admit Obama's actions in regard to this bill are jerk-like, I guess we'll see you focusing less on defending Obama and more on attacking him from here on in! /s

        Now, speaking of halfwits, let's see you cite your "your lord and master" claim.

        Considering your comment history, I have my doubts that it will be forthcoming:

        "his source is his ass. (see comment) "
        "eat me you hypocritical dirtbag (see comment) "
        "Why don't you? ***** jackass. (see comment)"

        ad infinitum.

        Anyone looking at Ron Paul's voting history can easily see "deign to vote" is simply a ridiculous claim.
    • nblsavage, on 07/09/2008, -3/+4The only reason 3rd party candidates can say they would never allow bills like this is because they are in no position to win and they can promise the moon and no one would call them on it. I guarantee that if they were they'd be pandering left and right. Digg me down, but it's a fact.
    • Shellius, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Cynthia McKinney is actually still running. Ron Paul has dropped out.
      The Green Party is the party of rights and peace, always has been, always will be. The Democrats are nothing more than glorified Republicans.

      http://youtube.com/watch?v=ncgEzmseZtc
  • facttech, on 07/08/2008, -2/+47It's worse than you think: It's not even a compromise.
  • pyro12, on 07/08/2008, -2/+27Feel that? That's your government raping you in the ass and insisting you like it.
    • johnmearns, on 07/09/2008, -0/+9...all while we claim that our rapist is better than other rapists.
  • displacednomad, on 07/08/2008, -2/+19Here's what's going on:
    Go here http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.630 ... and click on the HR6304EH version of the bill.
    Click on Title VII sections 106 and 107. Review the requested changes to the 1978 FISA bill.
    Now open a new tab and go here http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/50C36.txt
    Use your ctrl+F and search for 1823 and 1824 sections (the parts being amended).
    Review the requested changes.

    For example:

    (e)(1)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, whenever the Attorney General reasonably makes the determination specified in subparagraph (B), the Attorney General may authorize the execution of an emergency physical search if -
    (i) a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this
    title is informed by the Attorney General or the Attorney
    General's designee at the time of such authorization that the
    decision has been made to execute an emergency search, and
    (ii) an application in accordance with this subchapter is made
    to that judge as soon as practicable but not more than 72 hours
    after the Attorney General authorizes such search.

    becomes:

    (e)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the Attorney General may authorize the emergency employment of a physical search if the Attorney General--
    (A) reasonably determines that an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of a physical search to obtain foreign intelligence information before an order authorizing such physical search can with due diligence be obtained;
    (B) reasonably determines that the factual basis for issuance of an order under this title to approve such physical search exists;
    (C) informs, either personally or through a designee, a judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ an emergency physical search; and
    (D) makes an application in accordance with this title to a judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as soon as practicable, but not more than 7 days after the Attorney General authorizes such physical search.

    So do you see what I see? Yes, the part about judges being involved has moved down from I and II to parts C and D. Should this bill pass, the AG will not have to notify a judge right away about the employment of physical searches; in fact, the AG can take up to seven days to do so, after the fact.

    Bit by bit, there it all goes, down the toilet hole. America, f*ck yeah!
    • ZenMojo, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1I think a year or so of law school would help you understand, so look again. They're identical in preference.

      By your spurious guidelines, C and D is higher in import than i and ii:
      The original "(e)(1)(A)(i)" vs. The revised "e(1)(C)" and "e(1)(D)"

      The reality is that subsection (e)(1)(B) was removed in the revised text, and without putting that in your text it's impossible to grasp what the succeeding statements modify. And actually they are all equally of import as there is no "or" modifier to provide exception but an "and" modifier which demands inclusiveness of all subsection requisites.

      This means the revised text is actually more stringent then the previous text.
  • BTM08, on 07/08/2008, -2/+9Take action against this here: http://accountabilitynowpac.com
  • mikesbaker, on 07/09/2008, -4/+15***** like this makes me want to go and live off the grid. to bad I am a total techno junkie and could never pull it off.
    • toekneebullard, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3If you were a real techno junkie, you'd build your own grid.
  • MasterThief117, on 07/09/2008, -6/+20***** this *****. I think it's time for a revolution. No really, I think it is time to completely dismantle our current system and rebuild it. This one is broken. Very broken and give it a little more time, we are going to get ***** so hard by it, we will be walking with a limp until this country falls, just like Rome did.
    • engwar, on 07/09/2008, -6/+2A true revolution would really suck. You think gas and food prices are bad now?
    • Micaanab, on 07/09/2008, -1/+5The system isn't broke. Our elected officials are.
      The dems and repubs.

      We need a new party to take over. One that WILL uphold the constitution.
      • ZenMojo, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2A new party of what, smaller government for the individual or larger government for the health and welfare of its citizens?

        Oh, right. Even independents can't agree on what they want, so the new partisan issues would immediately arise. Libertarians and Greens would battle on foreign and domestic issues all ***** day if they had a chance.

        It all sounds nice in a Utopian "politicians are the problem" sort of way, but the reality is that there are more people happy with their party than pissed off at it. A third party would be a hard centrist party of neocons and neoliberals working for a Third Way.

        The rest of us would be marginalized into Liberal and True Conservative. And then we'd all be royally *****. No, ABSOLUTELY royally *****. How do you think Hitler won with 33% of the ***** vote?

        Until this country learns to favor runoffs, we always hazard some maniac with a 20% approval rating running off with absolute power. Someone like Bush who can mobilize 40-50% of the less than HALF of the people who vote.

        Oh, right, kind of like right ***** now.
    • toekneebullard, on 07/09/2008, -0/+7How are you going to plan a revolution when the government can wiretap you and listen in?
      • rv36116, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4It's called face to face meetings, not sure if it's in the history books for you to look at or not, but you'd actually get out from in front of your computer and get talking to others about this issue.

        It's important, DAMN IT!
      • USNavyBlue, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1Google Appleseed! And thats all I'm going to say. Mums the word.
  • rz8472, on 07/09/2008, -1/+67And, of course, there is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country that allowed the police to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your email communications; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to hold people in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, then the government would no doubt discover and arrest more terrorists.

    But that probably would not be a country in which we would want to live. That would not be a country for which we could, in good conscience, ask our young people to fight and die. In short, that would not be America.

    - Senator Russ Feingold
    • dalittle, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5How could anyone dig that comment down? Great quote.
    • atticus8, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1June 19, 2008, statement from Russ Feingold in response to FISA deal:

      “The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation. The House and Senate should not be taking up this bill, which effectively guarantees immunity for telecom companies alleged to have participated in the President’s illegal program, and which fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home. Allowing courts to review the question of immunity is meaningless when the same legislation essentially requires the court to grant immunity. And under this bill, the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power. Instead of cutting bad deals on both FISA and funding for the war in Iraq, Democrats should be standing up to the flawed and dangerous policies of this administration.”
  • LukasSmith, on 07/09/2008, -7/+7Really and America thinks anyone from this Senate is worthy to be president of the United States? Please.
    • Morfildor, on 07/09/2008, -2/+8You Obama fanatics need to sober the ***** up. He is a tool, no different than the rest of them.
  • AbsolutePatriot, on 07/09/2008, -17/+15I really have to laugh at all the Obamasheep who think that he is any different. The bilderbergs present two candidates, one being an angry old man, and the other a young charismatic black man. This way the sheep feel so progressive for voting for change!!! BAAAAH BAAAAH

    You don't even have to do much research to see that both shills attended the bilderberg meeting, along with kissing AIPAC ass. O'bomb(Iran)a is just another Zionist shill puppet reporting to the same masters as McWar.

    The ONLY candidate who represents freedom is Dr. Ronald Earnest Paul. Fact is, if you are voting for any of the other candidates, you are supporting someone who disregards the constitution, which makes you a TRAITOR.

    DESPITE WHAT THE MSM TOLD YOU PAUL IS STILL ELIGIBLE FOR THE GOP NOMINATION!!!!

    I'll admit, they do put on quite a good puppet show. the Obama hero worshipers eat it right up.
    • noahhoward, on 07/09/2008, -4/+9Yet Paul didn't vote...
      • AbsolutePatriot, on 07/09/2008, -7/+6PAUL HAD A PRIOR COMMITMENT IN MONTANA HE HAD AGREED TO MONTHS AGO. THE MAN ALWAYS KEEPS HIS WORD AND THEREFOR COULD NOT ATTEND. READ WHAT HE SAID ABOUT IT:

        http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2008/cr06 ...
      • FTWmovin2canada, on 07/09/2008, -6/+3BAAH prior engagement BAAH keep his word SHEEP what?
      • nblsavage, on 07/09/2008, -4/+5A stupid speech shouldn't be more important than actually doing his job.
      • AbsolutePatriot, on 07/09/2008, -9/+3LIKE IT WOULD HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE WITH ALL THE OTHER FACISTS IN THE HOUSE VOTNIG FOR IT

        AT LEAST PAUL BETTER SPENT HIS TIME SPREADING THE MESSAGE OF LIBERTY WHICH IS MORE IMPORTANT AS FAR AS IM CONCNERED

        keep sucking up that zionist MSM globalist propaganda, it wont help you in the end
      • noahhoward, on 07/09/2008, -3/+6Alright shut your trap and listen up. I voted for Ron Paul and I was ashamed of this nation when he didn't make it race after race however:

        "AT LEAST PAUL BETTER SPENT HIS TIME SPREADING THE MESSAGE OF LIBERTY WHICH IS MORE IMPORTANT AS FAR AS IM CONCNERED"

        That is ***** *****. Spreading the message of liberty while, apparently, lettign it wither and die is useless. I do not see a major problem with the FISA bill but Ron Paul in this case is doing one thing and saying another.
    • PolishLogic, on 07/09/2008, -4/+1I'm sure that somewhere beneath your paranoid ramblings, there's an intelligent point dying to get out.
    • person425, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2Rock on, associating anti-semitism with your candidate is going to do wonders for his popularity.
    • Soytaco, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1Well if all the FISA news has got you down, here's something to brighten your day!

      http://digg.com/users/AbsolutePatriot
  • brownrecluse888, on 07/09/2008, -3/+20I only see one comment here even mentioning Obama!! Hey Obamabots, HE supports this bill!! So maybe he's just like every other politician, and right now his run to the middle is him just doing whatever it takes to become president....if this was clinton doing this we'd see huff posts about it on digg all week long...
    • Palquito, on 07/09/2008, -3/+7Clinton IS doing it. She's set to vote yes on the bill as well. So much for the populist fiction they've wrapped themselves in.
      • netant, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1But she didn't vote yes to the FISA amendment bill. She voted No. (She might have voted yes on the cloture, I will have to check...)
  • ericjohnson0, on 07/09/2008, -0/+27(reposted from earlier thread- just coming in handy today)

    Glenn Greenwald, Salon.com: "In the past 24 hours, specifically beginning with the moment Barack Obama announced that he now supports the Cheney/Rockefeller/Hoyer House bill, there have magically arisen -- in places where one would never have expected to find them -- all sorts of claims about why this FISA "compromise" isn't really so bad after all. People who spent the week railing against Steny Hoyer as an evil, craven enabler of the Bush administration -- or who spent the last several months identically railing against Jay Rockefeller -- suddenly changed their minds completely when Barack Obama announced that he would do the same thing as they did. What had been a vicious assault on our Constitution, and corrupt complicity to conceal Bush lawbreaking, magically and instantaneously transformed into a perfectly understandable position, even a shrewd and commendable decision, that we should not only accept, but be grateful for as undertaken by Obama for our Own Good."

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/21/ ...
    • zip000, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6I support Obama - still - but, I am really disappointed about his decision here.

      I understand that not supporting this would get the rabid right wing folks talking about how soft he is on terrorism, but you know what - they are going to say that anyway. Democrats will always receive that label, even if it is wholly untrue.

      Very disappointed in Obama.
      • toekneebullard, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2He doesn't care that you're disappointed in him. You still support him, despite his actions showing that he acts in opposition to the "change" he speaks of.

        Remember when one politician said he was a "uniter, not a divider" and then he did just the opposite? No, I guess I don't remember that either. Oh well, this couldn't possibly come back to bite us in the ass.
    • atticus8, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1The best thing to happen to a faltering Salon in quite a few years was Glenn Greenwald. You rarely get that combination of sharp, analytical thinking and prodigious output.
  • stretta, on 07/09/2008, -1/+12The new FISA bill would needlessly expand the government’s ability to spy on Americans and ensure that the country never learns the full extent of President Bush’s unlawful wiretapping. The existing version allows officials to wiretap first and get permission later in moments of crisis, but there is oversight. I don't understand why we need to change this.

    Wait. Scratch that. I know why the bill exists. It is to protect President Bush. What I don't understand is why anyone would vote for it. If I were a representative, I'd take one look at it and say "Nice try." I can only conclude that a majority of our elected officials are either incredibly stupid, or corrupt to the core.

    Telecom PACs: "Hey there, elected representatives of the people. How would you like to violate your oath to upload the Constitution in exchange for a meager campaign contribution?"

    Congress and Senate: "Sure!"

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/opinion/08tue1.h ...
    • johnmearns, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4The odd thing is while we see examples of things like telco's getting legislation thats beneficial to them at the expense of the people, we also see the majority of people here thinking network neutrality is a great idea despite our legislators being clearly in bed with the telcos as usual. Its like the battered spouse that swears this time it will be different, their batterer promised to change!
    • FredFredrickson, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2And then some ***** conservative would label you as anti-American, pro-terrorism, and you'd be forced into passing it if you wanted to keep your job.

      *sigh*

      I hate politics sometimes.
  • 1gunners4, on 07/09/2008, -0/+15In other news, Congress has hit single digit approval ratings for the first time ever.
  • PolishLogic, on 07/09/2008, -4/+7Hey, at least Obama did the right thing and came out in support of this bill. This would definitely be some of that "change" he's talking about instituting.
  • DrakonKyrios, on 07/09/2008, -6/+1Its weird how people ask for a rebuild of our country all together. You can't rebuild a country after it falls because the concept of goverment is flawed and has to be flawed to be a goverment. The people and the goverment can't trust eachother and have to be blind. If one trusts the other, someone will take it in the A**. Our goverment chooses the people. People will always do what they think is the best thing to do and that means cutting corners, which our goverment does and so the Spiral continues. Freedom is flawed because of the freedom to do evil and good, so you need laws Spiral continues till you have this. We need to revolt as a majority when things cross the line. Its not hard to backtrack our concept is good but the bricks at the top are held together by ***** and we need to rebuild that. We need trust but we elect someone new every 4/8 years and it takes longer then that to build a relationship. We need to revolt as a majority when things cross the line. Government is a basic concept and the fact we have multiple goverments and multiple nations, we need one goverment and multiple nations(Alexander the Great and Early Rome had it right)
    • majestichazard, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1In other words, we need to establish a global empire under a single government, with all other governments subservient to it.
      Right. Go back to 500 BC why don't we?
  • vexingmodstwo, on 07/09/2008, -1/+23Reality can be a bitch sometimes, Obamabots. I hope you've learned your lesson.
    • skrowl, on 07/09/2008, -1/+11Obamabots are incapable of learning the truth about their candidate. That's what makes them "bots". Duh.
      • vexingmodstwo, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5Good point.
      • majestichazard, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Fortunately that is not the case.
        I hereby renounce my robottitude.
  • CARHINO, on 07/09/2008, -12/+3For all you idiots upset that our troops aren't required to carry warrants, and read them to the terrorists, while they are shooting at them, which federal judge will you use to support your revolution? Surely you would not proceed without going through proper channels?
    • PolishLogic, on 07/09/2008, -2/+10What I find interesting about your comment is that:

      A: you appear to be concerned about some "terrorists" probably living without indoor plumbing, who essentially got about as lucky as you could ever dream of being in regard to 9/11.

      B: This whole thing started as a way to monitor international to domestic calls without a warrant. Now it's domestic to international. Next up, we'll get the domestic to domestic, bank on it. From that point, why stop there? Why not just do away with the need to get warrants at all?

      Although, why not give the government all the power in the world, all so you can be as just safe as you were 10 or 20 years ago, from having a suicide bomber run into your home. By the way, how many troops are running around shooting terrorists in your neighborhood? Unless, of course, you're writing this comment from Kandahar.
    • stretta, on 07/09/2008, -1/+14Wow. Your lack of comprehension of the issue is impressive and saddening.

      The new FISA modification makes domestic warrant-less wiretapping legal, which the 4th amendment of the Constitution expressly forbids.

      I'm pro-Constitution, myself. It is interesting that defending the Constitution is now a position held only by radicals, extremists and, in your words, idiots.
      • ashfish, on 07/09/2008, -0/+9"I'm pro-Constitution, myself. It is interesting that defending the Constitution is now a position held only by radicals, extremists and, in your words, idiots."

        You so hit the nail on the head with that one. We're called unpatriotic when we question the government's actions now because people are afraid. People are afraid to hold up the Constitution because they don't think it can protect them, when in reality it is the ONLY thing that is going to protect them. Its the only thing in our current government system that was actually written with the people in mind.
      • CARHINO, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1Interesting how the left is only interested in defending their interpretation of the Constitution. Why no outcry last week over Pelosi wanting to moniter your ebay account? Terrorism cannot be treated as a criminal problem. We started losing wars when we let the libs start running them. What are you afraid of? Guilty conscience? guess what, the Govt has been monitering phone traffic for years, even during the clintonista regime. (they also moniter the internet)
      • ashfish, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Pelosi is a sell out and shouldn't be allowed in congress. Do you feel good knowing our illustrious leader wants to rip your rights away from you? Are you that scared of some imagined threat? Why do you assume that I'm afraid the government is going to find something on me? I have nothing to hide. But what I cannot stand, is that the freedoms this country was built upon can be taken away without anyone even batting an eyelash. It is despicable, and our founding fathers are rolling in their graves. And nice job trying to distract from the actual issue with your war smokescreen. The Constitution is the ONLY thing that is going to protect us from our government and they just keep taking more off of it.
  • PolishLogic, on 07/09/2008, -2/+21Looks like the terrorists did win. The US as we knew it has died.
  • trickyt, on 07/09/2008, -0/+16WTF Obama??
  • stretta, on 07/09/2008, -0/+9OK - here is the current state of the Senate vote, reposted from:
    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/09/ ...

    UPDATE II: The Dodd-Feingold amendment to remove telecom immunity from the bill just failed by a vote of 32-66.
    I was mistaken about Obama's not showing up to vote (that was the case, as I understood it, when the vote was scheduled for yesterday). He is in the Senate and, as he said he would, just voted (along with Hillary Clinton) in favor of the amendment to remove telecom immunity from the bill.
    From listening, these are the Democrats who have voted in favor of removing immunity from the bill: Akaka - Baucus - Biden - Bingaman - Boxer - Brown - Byrd - Cantwell - Cardin - Casey - Clinton - Dorgan - Durbin - Feingold - Harkin - Inyoue - Kerry - Klobuchar - Lautenberg - Leahy - Levin - Mendenez - Murray - Obama - Reed - Reid - Sanders (I) - Schuemer - Stabenow - Tester - Whitehouse - Wyden.
    Every Republican (and Lieberman) voted against removing immunity (including Arlen Specter, who spent all day arguing against immunity). Democrats voting against removing immunity: Bayh - Carper - Conrad - Feinstein - Johnson - Kohl - Landrieu - Lincoln - McCaskill - Mikulski - Nelson (FL) - Nelson (Neb.) - Pryor - Rockefeller - Salazar - Webb.
    Specter's amendment is next (to ban immunity if the spying was unconstitutional). Then they will vote on the Bingaman amendment (which I wrote about yesterday). They will both fail, and then they will vote on the final bill in its unchanged form.

    UPDATE III: Specter's amendment -- merely to require the court to determine the constitutionality of the NSA spying program and condition immunity on a finding of constitutionality -- just failed 37-61. Obama (and Clinton) voted in favor of the amendment, and Specter was the only Republican to do so.
    All Republicans (and Lieberman) voted against, and these were the Democrats voting against: Bayh - Carper - Johnson - Landrieu - Lincoln - Mikulski - Nelson (FL) - Nelson (Neb.) - Pryor - Rockefeller - Salazar. [NOTE: I'm recording these roll calls from watching the proceedings, and so it's likely there are some errors and omissions. I will correct them as they are brought to my attention and will link to the official roll call vote once it is available]. The Bingaman amendment is next.

    UPDATE IV: The Bingaman amendment -- merely to require that the Senate waits until the IG audit of the NSA program is complete before immunizing the telecoms (and here's an excellent piece documenting how inadequate IG investigations are for real oversight) -- just failed by a vote of 42-56 (60 votes were required for passage, courtesy of an agreement not to force the GOP to do a mount filibuster).
    Obama (and Clinton) voted in favor of the Bingaman amendment. Specter was the only Republican to vote in favor. The Democrats voting against: Bayh - Landrieu - Nelson (Neb.) - Pryor - Rockefeller. They are now in recess until the afternoon, after which they will vote to pass the underlying bill.
  • fungistratus, on 07/09/2008, -2/+8This is what the 9-11 terrorists wanted, less freedom for us.
    • Corrosionx, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5The real terrorists are in the government. They are the ones taking freedom away.
  • Shizcake1337, on 07/09/2008, -1/+9Obama supports it, so that obviously means it's okay... right?
    • SilverStandard, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1Thank God there are people on here have shaken that Obama trance off. Let's hope it doesn't take too long to show Obama supporters he's a fraud after he's elected.
  • poploserdigg, on 07/09/2008, -0/+9"The Democrats' capitulation is particularly puzzling because, as we've pointed out before, the Democrats' firm stance on FISA this Spring turned out to be a political asset, not a liability. When House Democrats called Pres. Bush's bluff and allowed the Protect America Act to expire in March, it got a wave of positive coverage from the media, which pointed out that the PAA's expiration would have little effect on the government's ability to spy on terrorists. Now that Democratic leaders are switching sides yet again, we've seen the re-emergence of unflattering coverage focusing on the Democrats' weakness on national security issues and lack of party unity. Protecting civil liberties ought to be a matter of principle, but even if Democratic leaders are unmoved by civil liberties concerns, one might have expected them to stand up to the White House based on purely political motivations."

    best comment on this issue yet
  • skrowl, on 07/09/2008, -2/+3Umm.. why do US courts think they have jurisdiction over foreign-to-domestic communication? This has always been a power of the executive branch. Liberals are once again just trying to do with the courts what they're unable to do at the ballot box.
  • rz8472, on 07/09/2008, -0/+9The Full List of Democratic Traitors. Ditto on the Republicans and that worm, Joe Lieberman -
    Bayh (D-IN)
    Carper (D-DE)
    Conrad (D-ND)
    Feinstein (D-CA)
    Inouye (D-HI)
    Kohl (D-WI)
    Lincoln (D-AR)
    McCaskill (D-MO)
    Mikulski (D-MD)
    Nelson (D-FL)
    Nelson (D-NE)
    Pryor (D-AR)
    Rockefeller (D-WV)
    Salazar (D-CO)
    Webb (D-VA)*

    *maybe being a potential VP pick wasn't a good idea after all
  • cesig, on 07/09/2008, -2/+15Everyone who votes for this bill should be brought up on treason charges. Yes, even Obama.
    • Micaanab, on 07/09/2008, -1/+4I am an Obama supporter and I feel let down. I actually felt he was about good change and not just change.

      Of coarse on most other issues I still support him but this is a big one.
    • majestichazard, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3A month ago I might have actually been willing to trust Obama with my life. Now that his knife is in my back I'm willing to admit I feel a bit foolish.
  • GrodyChamp, on 07/09/2008, -1/+7Good thing OBAMA is all about this crap.........
  • Micaanab, on 07/09/2008, -2/+8Apparently terrorism works. They use fear to take away our freedoms. Bush is playing right into the terrorists plan. They will continue to tear portions of the constitution out until we find ourselves with no rights left to fight for.
  • Corrosionx, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6Let's just individually revoke our consent, and eventually all they will have left is their guns and their willingness to use them against us, then we'll see what this government is really about.
    • neurobox, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2Great. Let me know after the entire police and military forces agree.
      • Corrosionx, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. No consent, no just power. If they go after me for revoking my consent, you will know if they are no longer lawful agents of the peace, but simply private corporate mercenaries, and will be held accountable on their full commercial liability.

        No more ***** around. I'm not waiting for a majority vote on this.
    • majestichazard, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Good to know people still read Locke.
      • Corrosionx, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Thanks but I never read him. It's self-evident to me.
  • USNavyBlue, on 07/09/2008, -1/+11A constitutional militia, a distinction recognized by 10 U.S.C. 311(a).

    "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government." -- Thomas Jefferson

    "If tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -- Thomas Jefferson

    Our founding fore fathers were wise beyond their years!
  • stretta, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4UPDATE VI: Cloture on the bill just passed 72-26. Obama voted in favor of cloture along with all Republicans. Hillary Clinton voted against cloture.

    After the cloture vote, the Senate just approved final passage of the FISA bill, by a vote of 69-28. Obama voted with all Republicans for the bill. Hillary Clinton voted against it.

    Democrats voting in favor of final passage of the FISA bill: Bayh - Carper - Casey - Conrad - Dorgan - Feinstein - Innuoye - Kohl - Landrieu - Lincoln - McCaskill - Mukulski - Nelson (Neb.) - Nelson (Fla.) - Obama - Pryor - Rockefeller - Salazar - Webb - Whitehouse.

    Democrats voting against final passage of the FISA bill: Akaka - Biden - Bingaman - Boxer - Brown - Cantwell - Cardin - Clinton - Dodd - Dorgan - Durbin - Feingold - Harkin - Kerry - Leahy - Levin - Lautenberg - Murray - Reed - Reid - Sanders - Schumer - Stabenow - Tester - Wyden.
  • PopcornDave, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Just out of curiosity, has anyone considered what a slew of FOIA requests for each and every occurrence of surveillance could do to this? Could this be a way to defeat it? Granted it would probably never go through, but it might gum up the works a bit.

    I'm just waiting for the first encrypted cell phone to hit the market. And don't some of the VOIP programs use encryption or at least have that option? How the hell are they going to make that illegal? They'd have to admit they were spying on you if they tried to outlaw that.
  • Chip53, on 07/09/2008, -8/+1Oh yeah, God forbid we should monitor enemy communications in time of war. That might hurt their little feelings.
  • vidar808, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Donate to the ACLU. They are suing!
    http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/35928prs20080 ...
  • juk3box, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2It seems that every time I look up the latest scandal in the news, the scandal is always worse than I thought it would be.
  • SchmuckofNI, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5We can talk about this all day and not a damn thing will be done. Its time to stop the talk and start doing. The most practiced freedom in this country is the freedom to do nothing. So start telephoning your senators and representives today! If that doesn't work, organize a petition against this bill. If that doesn't work, organize a match to Washington D.C. We are in a democracy damnit, lets start acting like it!
    • USNavyBlue, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2One small correction we are a REPUBLIC. A Democracy as defined by our Founding forefathers is a mob rule, that is what we have today! Other than that your rate on the money.
  • WarDogLRS, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1No accountability. No transparency. No justice.

    You joined CREDO Mobile and our community of engaged citizens in urging our legislators to stand up for the Constitution and let the justice system get to the bottom of the administration's domestic spying.

    Sadly, earlier today the Senate passed a bill that effectively grants telecom companies retroactive immunity.

    We know that President Bush abused his power and secretly spied on Americans. And that Congress refused to hold him accountable. But with the FISA authorization bill, we'll never know the full extent of Bush's illegal domestic espionage.

    What can you do? You can support a mobile phone company that shares your values. You can stand up for what you believe in with every call you make. You can join CREDO Mobile. We've fought long and hard to expose the administration's surveillance program and bring to justice those responsible — including Bush himself.

    How different are we? Take a look below. What you see may upset you. For an immediate remedy, make the switch to CREDO Mobile.

    * When the ACLU sued the National Security Agency over warrantless wiretapping, CREDO joined with an amicus brief — the only phone company to do so.
    * AT&T's Political Action Committee contributed the maximum amount allowable by law to the Bush/Cheney campaign — twice. CREDO has given $60 million to progressive nonprofits like Planned Parenthood, Earthjustice and Iraq Vets Against the War.
    * Verizon tried to block NARAL Pro-Choice America's text messages, calling them "unsavory." CREDO supports text messaging for progressive causes through our Mobile Action program.
    * AT&T has censored criticism of Bush during a concert webcast. CREDO fights for net neutrality as a member of the Save the Internet Coalition.

    If you think progressive values are important, then it's time to think about CREDO Mobile. Switch now and we'll buy out your current contract (up to $200).* Click here to learn more...or call 866.513.8670 to talk to someone right now about making the switch. Be sure to mention code 300246 so they'll know I sent you.

    Join today! This offer ends July 31, 2008.

    Thank you, as always, for your support.

    Sincerely,

    Michael Kieschnick
    Cofounder and President
    CREDO Mobile and Working Assets


    http://www.credomobile.com/?event=sh...ome&pageID= ...
  • ZenMojo, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Reality.

    50% of this country votes. It takes 50% of those voters to win an election.

    This means someone with the support of 25% of the population can control this country. George W. Bush's approval ratings are about 25%. That's right, Bush could win a third term if it weren't for term limits. This is why we need a Parliament and Run-off elections, so we can throw out the weak candidates and come to a reaosnable compromise.
  • WarDogLRS, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Who voted for the ILLEGAL FISA bill
    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li ...
  • seanpetrash, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2www.campaignforliberty.com
    If your talk isn't just talk, go there. Join. And together we can reshape our illegitimate congress.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.