The very WORST part of this is that Democrats agreed to send the bill forward, but Bush says he'll veto unless telecom immunity is included.

GOP: Americans will die if this law isn't passed, but we're willing to let that happen to give criminal immunity to our lobbyist buddies.

Pricks.

IrishWhiskey: so you wanna pass the law "to protect America," but you wanna open up the companies who comply to gigantic lawsuits? WOW, HOW PATRIOTIC.

No, Billy. Whiskey did not say that he wants to pass that law or protect America. He also did not say that he wanted the telecoms to get sued. He said that the Democrats are willing to pass this law, and Bush is threatening to veto it anyway.

There is a difference between what people actually say and what you imagine they say, Billy.

Also, no-one is talking about suing companies that comply with the law. Its the complete opposite, providing immunity to those who violated it.

MUSHROOM MUSHROOM

... MUSHROOM CLOUD.

AAAH IRAAAN IT'S IRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN

REPORT: NUKEHAVISTAN MAY HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Yeah this really is pretty shitty propaganda. Amateurish, ham-fisted.

It doesn't really help their cause that they showed the Dems turning down wiretapping as most average Americans don't like the idea of their privacy being infringed.

it's about as bad as that ad about three years ago the suggested that car emissions where natural and helping the environment (I'll search around and post if i can find that one)

HEY, ANYBODY! I found the commercial I mentioned but for some reason I'm not allowed to submit. Could someone go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sGKvDNdJNA
and submit this. Once you see it, you'll know it belongs here.

Just out of question, did you READ anything about the Protect America Act? It pertains to people outside the country... and when it involves people INSIDE, you have to have a court warrant. It also usually only deals with people connected to terrorist activities. So what's the problem? Could it be that you've hopped onto the anti-corporate "I DON'T READ ANYTHING" angry bandwagon?

Here's some advice:
1) drop out of college
2) stop smoking pot
3) take your Che poster down
4) start reading source material instead of blogs

Actually, it allows the AG and the Director of National Intelligence to go ahead with surveillance without a warrant if they think it is needed for national security:

Allows the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the AG to authorize the immediate electronic surveillance (without prior Court order) of persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States if: (1) the DNI and AG determine that it is in the U.S. national security interest to begin such surveillance; and (2) the AG submits to the Court, within five days after the commencement of the surveillance, a certification of and application for such surveillance.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN02011:@@@D&summ 2=m&

Maybe you should read direct sources before declaring things that aren't true. It wouldn't be hard to get a FISA judge to sign a warrant when one is needed, there is such a thing as telephones.

"reasonably believed to be outside the US" isn't enough limitation for me to ever support this bill as written.

stick to bouncing, mommas boy...

Roachbud:

You're ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. With the AG's and DNI's direct approval for targets believed to be outside the US, that DOES give them a lot of power. So what're you worried about? Becoming a terrorist threat because you talk too much shit on POE while you're sitting at your computer desk in Iran?

Gimme a break.

What I'm worried about is that the law is starting to whittle away at legal protections that have existed for centuries in the name of a "war" on an ism that has the potential to last forever. I'm worried about the slippery slope. It starts here and it could get a lot worse.

How come when I talk about slippery slopes with gayness and sexuality, everyone calls me an idiot, but when we talk about REPUBLICANS, all of a sudden it's cool to remind about obvious human tendency?

I swear, you guys...

I agree with you, Roachbud, and there's nothing wrong with being cautious, but I think this is something we can afford. I mean, it's spying on potentially dangerous travellers, or getting bombed.

A slippery slope is a only fallacy when it can be shown that accepting the first premise doesn't inherently lead to the next. In this case it actually is a slippery slope because this is several fucking slips down the slope, jackass.

Dammit, you're right. Its complete hypocrisy to be worried about a slippery slope eroding civil liberties and constitutional freedoms, but not gay people doing it. Freedom from having to buy more wedding presents is at least as important as freedom of speech.

Republicans wouldn't do that. They stand for our freedom; it says so right in their ads!

Something I don't get about this whole domestic surveilance vs what the hell are you thinking thing, though. Time and time again, whenever the issue of expanding investigative powers comes up, one of the main reasons cited (and sometimes the ONLY reason cited), is fear. They argue that the fear of future terrorist attacks should be enough to get us to swing our policy in such and such a direction, and they play up those fears of a phantom future world in which terrorists fly planes into buildings and plant bombs of commuter trains in order to convince us to vote FOR increases in domestic surveilance and expanded powers for law enforcement.

The standard, and fairly sensible, reaction to this is incredulous laughter, mockery, and indignation. "Fear" we say "is not a valid reason to set policy." Time and time again, whenever the Protect America crowd trots out it's Fear Weapon, we go to great lengths tearing it down and reaffirming that the simple fear of what MIGHT happen should not dictate our choice in this matter. Right? All well and nice.

But what happens when it comes time to argue AGAINST domestic surveilance and increased powers of investigation? Where do we go in order to justify striking down these measures? Well, you guessed it: fear. Not moments after brushing off Republican fear-mongering as silly and irrational, and what-if scenarios of dirty Arabs blowing up American buildings as ridiculously opportunistic jingoism, we start fear-mongering ourselves, presenting our own hellish visions of the future where Big Brother smiles at you from every corner and FBI agents drag good, Goddess-fearing Democrats off into the night for checking out a copy of the Qur'an at the public library. Que? Now is this REALLY sensible? Do we honestly have reason to believe that letting Agent "Look at my fucking caseload, I should have stayed with the aliens" Scully wiretap Fazel al-SuspiciouslyBrown will lead to a dystopic reign of terror?

Well, maybe we do. Maybe we don't. The point here is that fear-mongering has a proud pedigree, and both sides are guilty of it, to a more or less equal degree. The right likes to indulge in fantasies of outside danger, the left likes to indulge in fantasies of inside danger (until, of course, the tables turn around who controls the inside, in which case it's "Look out for Big Socialism" vs "President Obama better work on our international public image or else the rest of the world might get cross at us"). You can rabbit on for hours, days, whole Congressional terms about which carnival's Haunted House you want to bring Bettie Sue to in hopes of scaring her out of her poodle skirt, but at least be honest, and give the proud tradition of fear-mongering it's due.

Or just don't do it. Either way works.

All comments are held for approval.

That the video has an average rating of 1 star and no comments should probably tell you something about how this video has been received. Glorious.

EvilHomer: gotta say one thing. First of all, you're almost spot-on, but I've gotta let you know a couple of things.

First of all, fear isn't a horrible thing to employ against the masses. I mean, terrorism IS a real threat (read about the failed attempts since 9/11) and people SHOULD fear it. What's wrong with telling people that we're more likely to be attacked without adequate surveillance? And where would we be today if we ignored all our fears and lived injudiciously? That being said, fear shouldn't be the modus-operandi of the masses, and I think it should be balanced with reason.

Also, it should be noted that fear is the basis of morality and social structure. Without it, what would we have? Without the fear of crime and addiction, we would allow drugs. Without the fear of social decay and disease, we would promote promiscuity. Without the fear of thievery, we wouldn't outlaw stealing. What's the problem with fear? It's moral and healthy. We just have to keep it under control.

Buttsex: Here's a quote from Ben Franklin: "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." Terrorism isn't some existential threat that necessitates us to shred our constitution, it's a bunch of douchebags with box cutters who at best can bring down a couple buildings and kill 3,000 people out of 300,000,000. Al Qaeda has got nothing on the South seceeding or the Axis Powers.

A terrorist's primary objective is to instill panic, fear, and confusion. Al Qaeda did exactly that on 9/11. Seven years later Americans are still scared of something happening next, and the GOP is exploiting that to fulfill their own agenda. As long as people are afraid, they'll go with whatever they feel is necessary in order to stay safe.

Buttsex- so you're giving the proud tradition of fear-mongering it's due. That's cool. Like I said, you can argue that fear is as valid a reason as any to set policy, I just like consistency, and if you disagree with that it'd be nice if you didn't employ similar tactics to get your own point across. Now me? I'm a bouncer, an alpha male, a manly man with balls balls balls of steel. I can't admit to fear, so fuck fear, dude! I ain't afraid of no Arab! And, like George Carlin once said (yeah, I know, I mentioned George Carlin, I'm a faggot), a little terrorism now and then keeps life exciting.

Roachbud- he did say that, but if I'm not mistaken, the ACTUAL quote was more along the lines of "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" (I could be wrong, since 99% of the sources you can find online for that quote are random blogs and messageboard sigs). This is an important distinction, because Franklin was not against giving up A LITTLE bit of freedom in exchange for security. Who isn't (besides Objectivists)? I can give up my freedom to carry guns on planes in the name of security; it's not "essential", it's not that huge a deal, and as long as you still let me shoot immigrants and homeless people with said gun on my own property, hey! I guess I can live without my baby on my next business trip to Chicago. Junior just better remember to take her out of her case and clean her twice daily, gosh darnit.

The question here is: which freedoms are essential, and which aren't? And is there a degree to which essential freedoms can be, not necessarily given up (nobody's suggesting doing away with the criminal justice system entirely... yet) but rather tweaked a little, restricted, but still kept more or less (probably less) intact? Besides, the Founding Father's conception of what constituted an "essential freedom" boiled down to Natural Rights, an idea which is frankly absurd, but that's a whole 'nuther rant.

Quad- yep, that's exactly what terrorists do, and exactly the angle the GOP is taking. But again, we can just as easily flip it round, and say that as long as people are afraid (of potential future abuses by federal agents), they'll go with whatever they feel is necessary in order to stay safe (scrapping legislation that may be vital to preventing future attacks).

EvilHomer: I'd say let's start a church, but I think you might end up stealing the pulpit from me. This, I cannot allow.

Excellent analysis, nonetheless. And well written, to boot.

Roachbud: I kinda see your point, but I think EvilHomer pretty much summed everything up already. As such: THBT THBT THBT

I'm okay with giving Uncle Sam more power to get rid of terrorists. Of course, if you'd wanna just let the terrorists bomb a few more cities-- hey, maybe it might make things safer. It'd help protect us from Islamification, since there'd be Mosque-burnings and general hatred toward Muslims everywhere in the US after the next two attacks, and it'd put a sock in the mouths of all the "live and let live" liberals out there. But of course, you'd be fine with this, because you're against hate-crimes, since you're completely against sacrificing freedom for security.

Billy ButtSex wrote: "First of all, fear isn't a horrible thing to employ against the masses. I mean, terrorism IS a real threat (read about the failed attempts since 9/11) and people SHOULD fear it."

Good one Billy. Do you even know what "terrorism" means?