Comments on news posted 2009-06-04 08:57:20: Given Obama's support for telecom company immunity for handing over consumer data wholesale to the NSA without a warrant, it wasn't particularly surprising to see the administration perpetuate the Bush Administration's positions on domestic wiretappi.. ..
its all over? Isn't this story all about how Obama is upholding the "SAME" wiretapping concepts as President George W. Bush decreed?
Just let it go? Why should I or anyone else?
I thought Obama was going to change this nonsense into something right(I really never thought this). I thought Hussein stood for freedom and independence(because of his crafty logo during the campaign). I thought Barrack stood for more than just a change in tone of skin(never believed this either). I thought I was going to get free gas(
The EFF appeared to be like many other advocacy groups when it did nothing to repeal 18 USC 2511, nor explain to its members the legitimate reason 2511 exists (a congressional recognition of the constitutional authority of the Executive branch to conduct surveillance). Just "law breaking, committed a crime..."
Ummm, no. That's piling on a lot of garbage that just isn't part of the case here. My short answer to you on this is that we all know why wiretapping is authorized and unauthorized and these provisions in 2511 are non-controversial. Taking someone to task for not trying to repeal the Wiretap Act is not making an argument, it's throwing fodder.
I was only pointing out that the EFF never mentioned 18 USC 2511 to its membership, or acted proactively to repeal the law instead of waiting for a crisis.
It's my position that advocacy groups have an incentive to let crises happy (or depict everything as a crisis) to generate donations. A benighted membership is more likely to succumb to Group Think, write checks, etc.
said by amigo_boy:The result was that Congress reaffirmed the meaning of 2511 by basing so-called immunity on that existing law.
This isn't due process of law, it's avoiding due process of law. It's allowing a current congress to place down an interpretation of the acts of an earlier congress -- a move that is extra-Constitutional in itself.
When the Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of a law, it is common for them to consider the Congressional intent of that law. In the case of 18 USC 2511, members of the original Congress which passed the law indicated it was an acknowledgment of the Executive Branch's historic power to conduct surveillance. It was their way to avoid constitutional problems with the rest of the law they passed at that time.
The Congress which passed so-called "immunity" essentially affirmed that intent. They applied immunity if 2511 had been adhered to (the Executive branch "certified" no warrant was necessary).
You may be correct that the so-called "immunity" law is unconstitutional in the way it removed 2511's judicial review from the normal judicial process. But, that doesn't affect the fact that Congress added to the congressional intent which the Supreme Court would consider if the constitutionality of 2511 is ever challenged.
We can thank the EFF for that. They probably think it's worth it if they got a lot of donations due to their bombastic rants to their membership about "broken laws" and "criminal eavesdropping."