What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
45 Comments
- nonsequitor, on 07/03/2008, -0/+58I thought the democrats rationale for supporting retroactive immunity, those that did, was so they could use the telecom's campaign contributions to get re-elected.
- philodygmn, on 07/03/2008, -1/+29^
FISA trumps the state secrets privilege only in cases inolving "aggrieved persons." But plaintiffs must prove that they are "aggrieved" without making use of the secret document...
^
Completely ***** insane! You can say you're aggrieved, you can show you're aggrieved, but unless you can show WHAT aggrieved you, you have no case, and by definition whatever it is will be "secret" enough TO TRIGGER THE DAMNED LAW IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!! - waterboy4453, on 07/03/2008, -4/+26Props to Judge Walker. While the ruling has certainly complicated matters, it's definitely a step in the right direction. The executive branch was wrong to do what it did, and none of the people involved care that it was wrong.
The Bush administration has proven that it doesn't care about the American people. Unless, of course, by "American people" you mean the top 2%. Normally, the people can take that, or (at the very least) the majority of us don't realize that it's happening. When they finally do, we all get pissed off together, then elect someone else and expect them to solve the problem. We've taken the same ***** from Reagan, from Bush Sr, from Clinton, and from anyone else who dolls it up nicely enough. However, even with that said, the violations of American trust that those administrations served us pale in comparison to those of the current administration.
The difference between those administrations and this one is this: while the others just tried to cover up the smell, Bush Jr.'s government has forced it down our throats and told us "Here's a pile of *****." When the people responded, "Hey, that smells bad. And I think if we keep eating it, things will only get worse," we were told, "But it's delicious! Also, it's good for you, after all." The people ate it for seven long years, and things got worse and worse. Eventually, the people got the courage to say, "Uh, I don't think this is healthy at all. We now know that the nutritional value of this ***** does not exist." Cheney replied, "Meh! It's *****' good for you, and you're going to keep eating it, BECAUSE IT'S GOOD FOR YOU!" A good portion of the people became angry at this, knowing that it was a lie. They turned to the one power they held over the government: their votes. A Democratic Congress was elected, because word was, Democrats didn't like the smell or the taste of the *****. Finally, Congress would intervene. They stepped up gloriously, and with great pride spoke to the executive branch, shouting "Damn straight! This is some good *****. We're gonna add some salt for flavor, though. Enjoy the next two years." - ThatsNotPudding, on 07/03/2008, -6/+25Sadly, this ruling will be quickly overruled by the same black-clad dicks that INSTALLED these criminals into power in the first place.
- sienar, on 07/03/2008, -1/+18that's what i was thinking too
- inactive, on 07/03/2008, -2/+14That's some catch that Catch-22.
/Yossarian - bjornski, on 07/04/2008, -1/+9They're using a Kafka book as an instruction manual.
Scary. - Barackalypse, on 07/04/2008, -6/+12You are being far too uncynical about their motivations. Re-election, sure, but you must realize most of them view the citizens of this country as children unable to care for themselves and the Government is their nanny, and all good nannies use baby monitors, so they're playing nice with the telecoms who provide the surveillance abilities every good police, err nanny, state needs.
- ImperialRome, on 07/04/2008, -0/+6But Judge Walker still threw out their lawsuit without prejudice, meaning they can refile an amended lawsuit within 30 days.
- 3tcp, on 07/04/2008, -1/+7Yeah, the most dismaying thing about this is that the democrats came to congress with a bib on and a hearty appetite, votes weren't enough.
- NomortaL1, on 07/04/2008, -3/+8http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul463.html
Statement on FISA by Ron Paul - zanzzz, on 07/04/2008, -1/+6The President is not being "stripped" of anything! The FISA Court is the law and Bush can't claim special war powers, "State Secrets", or anything else to ignore it. This ruling spells out the fact that he has broken the law. The only logical reason for Bush to have violated the FISA laws is because he has used intelligence services of this country to "data mine" communications of Americans. The vast fishing expedition of data mining by the NSA with the illegal participation of AT&T and Verizon would pass no judicial test for reasonable cause, hence Bush's violation of the law. The FISA Court allows great latitude in how the government may conduct surveillance but wholesale spying on innocent Americans isn't permitted.
- obliviousfool, on 07/04/2008, -1/+6This is turning into quite a legal spider web, especially with whatever else resides in the retroactive immunity bill. Maybe, just maybe, before it gets to the Supreme Court we'll have at least one new justice. The rest of these cases are going about that slowly.
- Independentsam, on 07/04/2008, -2/+6"He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother." -----George Orwell------
- Independentsam, on 07/04/2008, -0/+4Thanks
- gab00n, on 07/04/2008, -1/+4The clock is ticking, I give the Judge a month before he "retires".
- sodade, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3On the 4th of July, I have a message from the founding fathers to all who dug this down: go die in a fire.
- inactive, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006 ...
http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/att/faq.php - sodade, on 07/04/2008, -4/+7I am ***** sick of this lame ass concept that governments get to have secrets at all. Time and time again, all governments have proven themselves untrustworthy and yet people eat this lie up like it is just common sense. "But but but, they NEED secrecy to keep you safe!" Give me the safety of an open kimono government please.
- Independentsam, on 07/04/2008, -1/+4Well said!
- Caffeinate, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2Supporters always make it sound like it is some benevolent god trying to monitor the terrorists and keep us safe, when the reality is probably closer to your ex-wife listening in on all of your phone calls in the middle of a bitter divorce. Nothing bad could ever come of that!
- JoeVet, on 07/06/2008, -1/+3Damn activist judges think they have the authority to interpret laws and judge their constitutionality. Don't they know they are just suppose to rubber stamp the right wing extremist agenda! /s
- Andy1369, on 07/04/2008, -0/+28==========================D~~~~~
Damn, I'm cummin' over this ;) - JoeVet, on 07/05/2008, -1/+3Before you rant out in public about an injustice, perhaps you should get some facts straight first. The telecoms fully opened their lines up for NSA wiretapping and they did it knowing that it was illegal and unconstitutional. They as well as the NSA and the president committed a crime and should be foreced to pay the price. I'll never understand how the GOP can rally around their own when they are caught breaking the law.
- Caffeinate, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2The problem that I have always had with telecom spying is that *right now* they say it is used to help monitor terrorists, but the opportunity for abuse is staggering. Anyone that supports it in the slightest should honestly think about the other ways it can be used.
Granting the telco's immunity from prosecution effectively leaves the door open that unscrupulous behavior is also excused because it took place when during the warrant-less wire tapping time frame. The dangerous part about this whole situation ultimately has little to do with what it was *stated* to be used for, it is what it *could* be used for and *might* still be used for in the future if immunity is guaranteed.
This isn't really about whether the telco's are or are not "protecting" us from "terrorists", this is about government and corporations granting themselves power over citizens that they do not have rights to. - Caffeinate, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2And here is my question - how do you know that every single person monitoring "terrorists" is actually doing just that, rather than obtaining information that can be used for blackmail, violates attorney-client privilege, violates doctor-patient privilege, or any number of other pieces of information that can be used by the unscrupulous?
That is the real problem. It sounds great that they are using this to keep us "safe", but the reality is that it can also be used to cause tremendous harm. Too many times in history have individuals and agencies granted themselves power with the best of intentions but the most horrific of consequences. Think about that, and consider if you would want your enemy monitoring your phone conversations, because the reality is that you don't know *who* would be listening or to what purpose they would ultimately use that information. It sounds great when it is some faceless protective entity, but dwell in reality and consider the opportunity for abuse. - inactive, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Uh, ok.
So then you admit the reason Bush put them in was to provide the services his police state needed?
I understand spying on citizens for a police state, but you rightards never seem to be able to explain how SPYING on people is part of a nanny state. Yeah, I've seen the "baby monitor" example, yet you rightards have failed to make it sound sane or reasonable. Instead it's just right wing blather.
Man, you rightard shills are just all over the map. Nothing makes any sense.
Try thinking things through before posting. - bitt3n, on 07/04/2008, -4/+5without baby monitors, how would anybody know when baby needs to be changed? By which I mean change you can believe in.
- AmerPatriot55, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Ron Paul may not have the charisma, but he sure as HELL has more INTELLIGENCE and MORAL FIBER than the ENTIRE HOUSE AND SENATE COMBINED!
He would NEVER, EVER promise to filibuster the FISA bill and then FLIP-FLOP and go along with it claiming it's a "compromise"! WHY is Congress ALWAYS compromising with this CRIMINAL administration?
Ron Paul knows VOLUMES on economics, the CONSTITUTION, Foreign Policy, etc. than these 2 stooges who are both puppets for the Council on Foreign Relations! Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich ARE NOT members and never will belong to this CULT of NWO elites because they are honest!
Ron Paul was marginalized because he REFUSED to put Isreal's interests ahead of the U.S.! That is the bottom line! - jazzbeaux, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1The People Power Hour did a show about this...interesting how many otherwise apparently functional adults are all for allowing a free reign on FISA acivities
- Caffeinate, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Well said. As citizens, it is our responsibility as the governed to *watch* those that govern us and make sure that the decisions they make are in the best interest of our nation and the people. When the government is allowed to operate in secrecy, the interests of the nation and the citizens are not served, government serves its own interests. It is naive to believe that *anyone* in government (or any bureaucracy for that matter) will always do the right thing when no one is looking.
- jahayiti, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1I SPY !!!
- davbmn68, on 07/04/2008, -3/+4My question is this. How does a President monitor foreign terrorists who are using domestic telecommunications which are routed "through" the US but neither originate or terminate in the US? This act, and the FISA court were set up to remedy this problem, which occurs because of the ownership of global telecommunications being owned and serviced by US companies. If we strip the president, any president, of this legal tool to monitor foreign communications we remove one of the most effective ways of keeping ourselves safe from attack.
Monitoring enemy communications has been done since this country was founded. Yet we like to act like this is some new attack on our civil liberties. This is just the latest way doing this, just in a high tech way. - inactive, on 07/04/2008, -4/+4I concur.
- Hellman109, on 07/04/2008, -5/+5Retroactive laws are unconstitutional.
Impeach your criminal leaders, its simple, on multiple fronts they have broken very important laws and destroyed your country. - STPZ, on 07/04/2008, -4/+4democrats envoke the use of CYA as rationale to vote for fisa since they did so little to prevent such illegal acts; Cover Your Ass
- inactive, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1I feel the same way.
- JoeVet, on 07/05/2008, -2/+1What kind of commitment can be more important than protecting the rights of the American people? Guess 'ol Ron Paul has his priorities!
- NomortaL1, on 07/04/2008, -2/+1still think Ron Paul wouldve made a better president... he just doesnt have Obamas charm to attract the masses
- JoeVet, on 07/05/2008, -2/+1The democrats don't have the votes to override the GOP. If you want real change then we need more democrats and/or less Republicans. Its still GOP ***** your being fed.
- inactive, on 07/04/2008, -6/+3I miss the good old days of digg, before recommendations and when Ron Paul propaganda reined supreme.
Yesterday, If only I had stopped to smell the flowers. - NomortaL1, on 07/04/2008, -3/+0what if they use... the internet?
- nedzeve, on 07/04/2008, -9/+6Why didn't Ron Paul vote against FISA? He speaks as though he's against it, but when it comes time to vote, he's AWOL.
I guess he's not that special and just like every other politician. - yuanzhoulu, on 07/04/2008, -5/+1those bastions...
- bhavinp, on 07/04/2008, -11/+28=====D
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is