Jun. 17th, 2008

jackofallgeeks: (Bashful)
So, I decided last night that I wanted to have hard-boiled eggs for dinner.

Unfortunately, I ended up getting involved in catching up on emails after
putting the eggs on.
Eggs will explode if they're left on the stove after the water has all
boiled away.
I made hamburgers.
jackofallgeeks: (Default)
So I imagine that most of you haven't been following the whole bit about
immunity for telecoms who cooperated with the Government on warrentless
wiretaps. I admit I've only paid a little bit of attention to it. There
have been some who claim that the way the wiretapping was done ensured that
no American citizens' rights were violated, and at least one of my Friends
here argued that immunity for the telecoms isn't unreasonable based
on the fact that they were 'compelled' by the government to do what they
did. What's at stake is that some people want to take the telecoms to court
alleging that their rights were violated, and immunity would have all such
claims tossed out. The point is that, right or wrong, what the telecoms and
the administration did with warrentless wiretaps should be subject to the
oversight of the Judicial Branch, and the proposed immunity would keep that
from happening. If no wrong was done, the courts will find that, but if
there laws WERE broken then the people in charge need to be held
responsible.

This immunity is being proposed as part of an update to the FISA law, and
initially Congress had dinied such a provission (resulting in FISA not being
renewed 'on time'). Right now there is a "compromise"
in the bill that may get passed, but it's a rather empty
compromise
. In it, the courts would determine whether or not a telecom
was told by the President to do what they did, and whether the President
said it was legal. If that's the case (and it's already been shown that
this is the case), then the telecom would be off the hook. Effectively,
this is saying that it's OK to break the law if the President tells you to.
This is unacceptible in that it places the President and his will above the
rule of law.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has a Prepared
Statement
that you can read, and can help you find the phone number for
your reprisentatives as well. I think it's very important that we let our
representatives know that it's not OK to let people off the hook for
potentially-criminal acts just because the president said it was alright.

Numa Numa.

Jun. 17th, 2008 05:00 pm
jackofallgeeks: (Geeky)
If you know much about viral YouTube vids, this new Weezer Vid is pretty awesome.

Profile

jackofallgeeks: (Default)
John Noble

August 2012

S M T W T F S
   12 34
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 26th, 2017 11:06 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios