You know congressman, I’m not saying you’re wrong but it is plausible that you are. So can we at least open the floor up to some reasoned debate about possible alternatives to your theory of God ordained it? You know because if you’re wrong (which you are not) we’re all absolutely fucking SCREWED.

Just saying…..

Oh and in case you’re wondering why I am not linking the congressman’s site it’s because I have a stupidity filter.

In closing here’s Jesus riding a dinosaur enjoy!

Now for those who haven’t been following things I will briefly outline my opposition to the current bill that the president backs. Simply put, after 9/11 Bush wanted to listen into communications between terrorists, a noble end indeed but the means he used to achieve this end were not only wrong, they were criminal, and some would say impeachable. Through various means he convinced the telecoms (except for Qwest) to let him listen in on all communications both voice and data going through their networks, and in some documented cases the telecoms even hardwired the government security agencies right into their networks, enabling them to eavesdrop on all communications going on over the net. He did all this without obtaining a court order which is where the illegality of it all comes in. Any person who has watched Law and Order knows you need a court order to listen in on communications and in cases of national security the president even has a special secret court known as the FISA court to grant him these orders, and they almost always allow them.

My problem with the bill has nothing to do with Bush however, my problem is simple. The telecoms knew it was illegal but they did it anyways, and to escape prosecution they have asked for retroactive immunity to be written into the next FISA bill. They claim in various ways complete ignorance of all of this of course but we are talking about multi national, multi billion dollar cooperations. They have teams of lawyers whose sole responsibility are things like this, they knew what they were doing, they were just afraid that fighting this would leave them branded as traitors after 9/11.

Which brings me back to Senator Feinstein and her letter, which states:

The Intelligence Committee’s report on the bill includes declassified text stating that the Executive branch provided letters to electronic communication service providers at regular intervals. These letters all directed or requested assistance and noted that the assistance was authorized by the President and was legal.

I introduced an amendment on the Senate floor that would limit this grant of immunity. Under my amendment, cases against the telecommunications companies would go to the FISA Court for judicial review. The Court would only provide immunity if it finds that the alleged assistance was not provided, that assistance met legal requirements, or that a company had a good faith, reasonable belief that assistance was legal.

I believe that this approach strikes the correct balance: it maintains court review and a judicial determination of whether companies provided assistance that they should have known violated the law.

So Mrs. Feinstein if I am reading you correctly if someone I reasonably believe is telling the truth tells me its legal to steal this persons car I can not be held liable? Because that’s how I am reading this amendment.

The president had noble intentions with his request of the telecoms, and I am sure the telecoms didn’t mean to break the law, but they did, as did Bush. He won’t be impeached, censured or punished in any way by you or anyone else in the senate, but those companies that either A. knew better but acted anyways or B. were criminally negligent, must not get off so easy.

Do not allow them to get off that easy Mrs. Feinstein, I beg you.

“The civil libertarians among us would rather defend the constitution than protect our nation’s security.”

That wouldn’t be terribly alarming if it came from the likes of Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity or others of that ilk like Rush Limbaugh but no it came from United States senator Jeff Sessions from Alabama in regards to the debate surrounding the FISA bill before the senate.

Now I will keep myself from going on a rant and just finish this post with a merging of a couple famous quotes from great historical figures.

We can not defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home, if we give up a little of our freedom for a little safety we will have neither ultimately.

If you don’t know what FISA is, then get educated from @ wiki

Oh and thanks digg, and thanks UnamericanRevolution