FISA sellouts
2008-06-27 19:46:32.541369+00 by
Dan Lyke
10 comments
What did it cost for Democrats in the House of Representatives to sell out your privacy in granting the telecommunications giants immunity for whatever illegalities they may have committed in following the illegal instructions of the Whitehouse in tapping your telephone? About $8k.
Those Alaskans, with arguably the most corrupt legislators in the union, have started an effort to buy back their legislators. My main concern is that ours don't appear to stay bought.
[ related topics:
Politics Privacy Alaska
]
comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):
#Comment Re: made: 2008-06-27 22:31:46.567824+00 by:
ziffle
[edit history]
by Ron Paul
20 June 2008
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.
The main reason I oppose this latest version is that it still clearly violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution by allowing the federal government to engage in the bulk collection of American citizens’ communications without a search warrant. That US citizens can have their private communication intercepted by the government without a search warrant is anti-American, deeply disturbing, and completely unacceptable.
In addition to gutting the fourth amendment, this measure will deprive Americans who have had their rights violated by telecommunication companies involved in the Administration’s illegal wiretapping program the right to seek redress in the courts for the wrongs committed against them. Worse, this measure provides for retroactive immunity, whereby individuals or organizations that broke the law as it existed are granted immunity for prior illegal actions once the law has been changed. Ex post facto laws have long been considered anathema in free societies under rule of law. Our Founding Fathers recognized this, including in Article I section 9 of the Constitution that “No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” How is this FISA bill not a variation of ex post facto? That alone should give pause to supporters of this measure.
Mr. Speaker, we should understand that decimating the protections that our Constitution provides us against the government is far more dangerous to the future of this country than whatever external threats may exist. We can protect this country without violating the Constitution and I urge my colleagues to reconsider their support for this measure.
Now, who else, ANYWHERE has spoken out so forcefully or Eloquently against this? Only Ron Paul. The Ron Paul Campaign For Liberty carries on the journey begun with the election.
#Comment Re: made: 2008-06-28 03:15:06.401715+00 by:
TheSHAD0W
While there have been some notable and laudable instances of companies defending individual rights, I can't completely blame the ones who fold; today's government wields a heavy stick, and I can understand them complying with requests for information. "The government isn't supposed to make illegal requests, is it? So it must be okay..." So if they're working within our corrupt system to cover their asses, again, I can understand it.
And I think the congresscritters know it too; $8K is hell of a lot less than they usually demand.
And ziffle, please don't bring up Ron Paul any more; he's a hair-brain who largely talks the good talk, but couldn't control his own campaign, and I sincerely regret donating to the cause. I'm reminded every week by a letter from the GOP touting McCain.
#Comment Re: made: 2008-06-28 07:56:48.286253+00 by:
ziffle
[edit history]
Ron Paul is and always was about ideas; contributing to him because of emotion instead of understanding ideas is mid-guided. Funny, we can all read what Ron Paul said and how apropo it is, but then it is asked that he not be discussed anymore. He is the only person worth discussing. This is a long term cause. The NeoCons are entrenched and a country abiding our constitution will take a lot of work. Don't lose heart.
#Comment Re: made: 2008-06-28 13:26:32.870817+00 by:
Dan Lyke
Seems like Feingold and Dodd are being more effective at fighting FISA than Paul's rhetoric...
#Comment Re: made: 2008-06-28 14:38:16.817012+00 by:
ziffle
Looks like it passed so how were F & D effective at fighting it? In the long run it is ideas that are stronger than guns.
#Comment Re: made: 2008-06-29 02:09:58.492871+00 by:
TheSHAD0W
ziffle, I asked that because it depresses me; Ron Paul may be about ideas, but some of his ideas have been less than acceptable. Despite being a registered Libertarian, his donor list was given to the RNC and I keep getting spammed by them now.
I consider myself to be the godfather of this book (Ron Paul Revolution: History in the Making); I encouraged the author to buckle down and write, and now it's ashes in my mouth. I understand what Ron Paul's campaign was up against, but it was thoroughly mishandled, its only success was from starry-eyed volunteers and the enormous amount of money donated to him wound up stolen or misused.
So yeah, go ahead and tout his speeches, but everyone who knows the real story will know what's REALLY behind those words and will feel the pain yet again.
#Comment Re: made: 2008-06-29 02:20:58.105571+00 by:
Dan Lyke
Yeah, I see that Ron Paul energized the faithful, but I don't think he made any actual inroads into the mainstream, and I think this recent candidacy just did more to reinforce the stereotypes of Libertarians as closeted bigots who yearn for a return of the confederacy. His inability to run a campaign, and unwillingness to speak up and finger the people who were writing the Ron Paul letter for him, has set the Libertarian movement back quite a bit, and I think there'll be a long hard struggle to recover from it.
Feingold and Dodd were as effective fighting it as Paul.
#Comment Re: made: 2008-06-29 06:53:14.925115+00 by:
ziffle
[edit history]
Shadow:
You are making unsubstantiated assertions.
"some of his ideas" points to what to do with the rest of the election money and its not really about ideas at all.
I doubt he gave his list to the RNC. Maybe it migrated.
Your advocacy of a book -what does that have to do with this?
I do agree his campaign was not run well, but I have learned things are not always as easy as they seem. I think he made a world wide impact. You try and do what he did.
So you have not made an argument against his ideas at all, but against the pain of disappointment. In fact I wonder if you understand the role of philosophy in history.
You seem to claim that you know the 'real' story and you feel injured and let down.
Just what was it you wanted Ron Paul to do? What would be your best case outcome?
Dan: It is a war of ideas and attrition; maybe the issue of those you consider bigots is more important to you than the ideas of freedom? Freedom allows discrimination; yes, gays and blacks and Irish and Italians so forth. In a sense you seem to be more of a liberal than for historical freedom. To then criticise RP for not being a Libertarian seems off the mark. Out of all he has written and voted for in the last 30 years you point to a few paragraphs in a newsletter and attempt to condemn RP for that; I have previously printed them here and they are factual not racist; in fact if you have seen how fleetfooted a black teenage male can be it is amazing. For his comment about that you seem to want to ignore what he is saying. Dodd was against the immunity provision; I do not know what Fiengold was against. But the rest of the law was awful - were these two against the whole law? Why not? Should we focus on the single action which overlaps our desired outcome and claim then that the entire acter and all previous actions are ok or should we look at the root and principles the actor is proposing and has worked toward and ignore a few overlapping things we do not agree with? The issue is one of essentials, not random actions.
Libertarianism? What is it anymore? I have never been a Libertarian, and actually the definition seems to change. I have spoken to Libertarians recently that had no idea of the history of that party which included, Indian rights, competing governments, anarchists, socialists, and such. RP is running as a Republican, as defined long ago. Do you agree with his platform or not? Do you agree with the ideas of freedom? What is your epistemology?
#Comment Re: made: 2008-06-29 15:08:04.696448+00 by:
Dan Lyke
In this case, my epistemology is relevant only in the pragmatic specifics of whom I ally with. We've already established that Ron Paul is just fine with my neighbors coming for me with torches and pitchforks, over things as miniscule as my private sexual practices, as long as they do that at a state and not a federal level, and my epistemology will not protect me when that happens.
So the question is, am I likely to find more freedoms in allying myself with Feingold and Dodd, or with Paul? Classic micro versus macro issue, you might think it'd be with Paul if I choose a region that's tending towards freedom (ie: Not Paul's district), but justice exists in the détente between two parties with equal abilities to violence, and those with my beliefs in justice keep getting trounced. If everyone agreed with Paul then allying with Paul is a good idea, but they don't, so allying with people who are actually being effective is more likely to get me changes that I'll enjoy in my remaining four or five decades.
My epistemology will not protect my rights, only my alliances with those willing to threaten violence will do that.
As for what I'd have had Paul do, I'd have had him meet those charges of racism head on, rather than waffling around "I don't know who wrote that" when everyone damned well did know who wrote that. I'd have had him speak out for freedom and liberty, not "states rights", because states don't have rights, only individuals do. That's the big starters, but the list goes on for a while from there.
#Comment Re: made: 2008-06-29 16:04:08.952237+00 by:
ziffle
Hmm this reminds me of a Tony Soprano approach. Pragmatic, non-ethical, range of the moment.
And I for one, do not understand why the RP article would be brought up again after it has been shown not to be racist at all.
There are a very few RP positions I could not support, but he is 100% in favor of the constitution and thats a good start for me. We can then work toward an Objectivist world from a better place.