how-to block ads
|
|
view: topics flat text |
|
Comments on news posted 2007-12-18 10:38:17: According to the Washington Post, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) last night abruptly withdrew legislation that would have given AT&T and Verizon legal immunity for their role in the government's domestic spying program. ..
|
 | |  I called this yesterday
This one attempt failed. But this is only the beginning of the fight to get immunity for the telcos. The House didn't pass a FISA bill with immunity in it. And the Senate still has to consider a competing bill and amendments before the Senate can pass a FISA bill with immunity. And even then, if the Senate ultimately passes immunity it has to go to a Senate/House joint committee for negotiations and then be passed again by both House and Senate. And this all has to happen before February, when the FISA authorization has to renewed or be sunsetted.
So a lot of people are getting their panties in a knot prematurely. There is still a long way to go before this issue is settled.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
| |
| |  81399672Premium
join:2006-05-17
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:2 | Re: I called this yesterday the immunity is pretty much dead now as 2008 is an election year. Anything that will make politicians look bad will not get passed.
--
i am not a lawyer but I do play one on the internet | |
| |  gaforcesUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | Some conflict of interest seems to be surfacing between the people and the administrations colluding with corporations.
Looks like a very tough fight. I dont care if they want to spy on me, go right ahead if it will save some lives.
But they need to do it legally with some oversight.
There are too many ways to exploit and abuse this power to let it happen without careful attention.
--
‘Do ye, quieting in your bosoms your strong hearts,
Who of many good things have had your fill even to surfeit,
With what is moderate nourish your mighty desire; for neither will
We yield, nor shall you have all else as you wish.’
Solon | |
| | | Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: I called this yesterday said by gaforces:Some conflict of interest seems to be surfacing between the people and the administrations colluding with corporations. ... where have you been the last 6 years? This administration is by the corporation, for the corporation and of the corporation. There are very few decisions made by this white house that don't take into account the desires of corporate America. | |
| | | | | | Re: I called this yesterday tell us something we don't know...geez | |
| | | | | | its not just the Republicans | |
|
 huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ | I'd favor indemnifying the telcos... ...but it'll never happen.
The reason? The immunity proposals are less about protecting the telcos' bottom line; that's secondary. What they are really about is quashing the lawsuits so the details of what the administration did/is doing will never_see the light of day.
--
There *are* no answers, only questions; or, rather, every answer begs another question. | |
| | Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| Re: I'd favor indemnifying the telcos... said by huntml:The immunity proposals are less about protecting the telcos' bottom line; that's secondary. What they are really about is quashing the lawsuits so the details of what the administration did/is doing will never_see the light of day. I think you're right. I also think this is about maintaining historical records so they can be supeonaed in the same way phone records can. In the end either the government will have the power to collect and maintain this history, or a business model will be created which recompenses ISPs (or the larger backbone providers) for doing it. Much the same way companies like Lexus Nexis maintain personal information about us, and the government subscribes to it. The government evades the sticky issue of doing what a private entity can do. And, a private entity does it, essentially with government funding. I think they're looking to establish a similar model if the government (and backbone providers) are prohibited from operating under the current model.
Mark | |
| | | huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: I'd favor indemnifying the telcos... Interesting take on this.
Somewhat relatedly, I read an article that talked about how the NSA used to grab a lot of traffic out of the air back when microwave was the dominant long-range transmission method used by telecom, but have lost that capability to an increasing degree as things have transitioned to fiber for long-haul transmission, and have had to increasingly go to the telcos for access. That's probably the impetus behind all these secret deals with telcom, and it's probably been going on for longer than since 9/11, although 9/11 certainly probably accelerated it.
I do not disagree that the government needs to be able to track telecom traffic, and even perhaps data mine it, run it through filters, etc., all the stuff the NSA allegedly is so good at.
What I *do* object to is the administration (1) unilaterally agreeing that the laws we've put in place to do this in a sensible way that allows for oversight (e.g, FISA warrants) no longer work; and (2) trying to cover it all up after people found out about it so that no one will actually know what they were/are doing, and whether it is or is not in accordance with law. I also disagree with blanket immunity for the telcos. Let's have a trial with witnesses and discovery so we can all know what they actually *were* doing. If they really did act in good faith with the government, let the government indemnify them for any damages, but let's still have the trials. | |
| | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: I'd favor indemnifying the telcos... said by huntml: Let's have a trial with witnesses and discovery so we can all know what they actually *were* doing. If they really did act in good faith with the government, let the government indemnify them for any damages, but let's still have the trials. That doesn't make sense to me. What you're describing is a Congressional investigation, not civil claims of damages. If the the politicians who are capable of calling for an investigation (and impeachment hearings) aren't willing to do that, they're not going to let it go to civil court and indemnify the telcos. I.e., if they were going to do that they'd just have congressional hearings and have more control over it.
I guess I'm hearing a lot of different premises for civil action against the telcos.
1) The telcos broke their contract with their customers.
- But, only their customers have standing to make this claim of damages (and how, exactly, would they prove they were damaged? How did they suffer monetarily?).
2) The telcos broke an unwritten contract with everyone because they provide backbone services to everyone.
- But, I doubt anyone would have standing to make this claim. And, unlike signing on to a contract (which grants you certain expectations), nobody has an expectation of privacy on the Internet unless they use SSL, SSH, external encryption, etc. Those people who did weren't damaged. Those who didn't had no expectation of privacy (being equivalent to leaving your car keys in the ignition and then complaining your car was stolen).
3) Sue for injunction from further cooperation.
4) Sue for money to drive up their costs, drive customers away (who apparently wouldn't leave over this issue alone).
5) Sue just to get the facts on the table.
There's no coherent strategy behind the goal of attacking telcos civilly. I think everyone can agree that it's a ham-handed way of doing what there isn't political will to do in the natural and constitutional way.
To me, that wreaks as badly as what the President and telcos are accused of doing. It seems to show the same contempt for law.
Mark | |
| | | | | huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ
4 edits | Re: I'd favor indemnifying the telcos... said by amigo_boy :
There's no coherent strategy behind the goal of attacking telcos civilly. I think everyone can agree that it's a ham-handed way of doing what there isn't political will to do in the natural and constitutional way.
To me, that wreaks as badly as what the President and telcos are accused of doing. It seems to show the same contempt for law.
How did you feel about the Brown/Goldman estates' bringing of a civil suit against O.J. Simpson? Was that a demonstration of contempt for the law?
The fact is that we have civil courts, and people are free to bring suits in them.
If the suits are without merit because there is no showing of potential for damages by the defendants named in the suit, or are being brought by people without standing, they will be summarily discharged.
That is the law.
You talk about the bringing of such suits being a showing of contempt for the law; but the ability for people to bring such suits *is* the law, clearly, so you are wrong.
Period.
It *is* the law.
I agree with you that Congressional hearings would be a better way to handle this inquiry, but...it is what it is. The fact that the Congress doesn't have the stones to stand up to this administration does not mean that individuals who believe they have viable civil cases against the telcos should be peremptorily shut off from bringing such cases before any adjudication as to their validity is undertaken.
You want to prevent people from exercising their right to their day in court, and you speak of *contempt for the law* in the same breath?
To quote something we African Americans say to each other in such situations, 'ni**a please.' | |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: I'd favor indemnifying the telcos... said by huntml:How did you feel about the Brown/Goldstein estates' bringing of a civil suit against O.J. Simpson? Was that a demonstration of contempt for the law? They pursued criminal court first? How would you feel about the police punishing illicit drug makers in civil court, foregoing criminal court, just because it's easier? The Goldman's didn't do that, did they?
said by huntml:I agree with you that Congressional hearings would be a better way to handle this inquiry, I said "natural" way. Like the Goldmans having their day in criminal court. Or, the police trying illicit drug makers in criminal court.
said by huntml:The fact that the Congress doesn't have the stones to stand up to this administration The big assumption here is that Congress needs to stand up to this administration. The natural reading of current events is that a majority don't believe it rises to that level. And, their actions to amend FISA to provide for what has been happening tends to prove it (in the same way the 13th Amendment and Lend-Lease Act paved over previous "indiscretions.").
Mark | |
| | | | | | | huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: I'd favor indemnifying the telcos... OJ was acquitted in criminal court. The Goldmans won a judgment against him in civil court. | |
| | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: I'd favor indemnifying the telcos... said by huntml:OJ was acquitted in criminal court. The Goldmans won a judgment against him in civil court. My point was that they sought criminal justice first. They didn't say "aw shucks, this will be too haaaaaard. Let's do civil court" instead.
On a personal note, I wasn't too impressed with the notion of the Goldmans going to civil court to get what they couldn't in criminal court. (I didn't agree with the criminal court judgment. But, it seemed slimy to basically retry him in civil court with lower standards.). It doesn't seem like it's done the Goldmans a lot of good. They seem to be obsessed with revenge. At some point it seems like you have to live with the outcome of the criminal trial and move on.
But, that's just me. As you said, it's their right.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: I'd favor indemnifying the telcos... said by amigo_boy  But, that's just me. As you said, it's their right.
Mark
[/BQUOTE :So, too, in this case. These defendants (some 30+ of them, as I understand it) have brought cases that are on their face in accordance with torte law. So long as they have standing, and can make a prima facie case that it is at least possible they suffered damages, the cases should go forward, whether you like it or not. That, again, is *the law*. | |
|
| | | | | | huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ | We don't know that the amendments to FISA serve to retroactively legalize what the admin. was doing, because *we don't know what they were doing*. That's why we need to have *some* mechanism to examine what they were doing._At this point, with this bitch-ass Congress, it looks like civil trials against the telcos are the only way to shine light on the matter. | |
| | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: I'd favor indemnifying the telcos... said by huntml:We don't know that the amendments to FISA serve to retroactively legalize what the admin. was doing, because *we don't know what they were doing*. You need a girlfriend. There's a presumption that Congress is aware of what "[the administration] were doing" and the amendments reflect Congress's good-faith effort to ameliorate the potential for shortcomings while filling the "dire hole" you admitted needed to be fixed. (Balance of powers, and all.).
You're assuming that the amendments have no relation to what happened. Or, that you can't trust Congress acted appropriately. That's the way representative democracy works. If you don't like it, run for office. That would be more in line with the Constitutional intent than sinking to civil court for monetary damages.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ
1 edit | Re: I'd favor indemnifying the telcos... said by amigo_boy:
You need a girlfriend.
My wife of twenty-one years would *probably* beg to differ with you.
quote:
There's a presumption that Congress is aware of what "[the administration] were doing" and the amendments reflect Congress's good-faith effort to ameliorate the potential for shortcomings while filling the "dire hole" you admitted needed to be fixed. (Balance of powers, and all.)
You're assuming that the amendments have no relation to what happened. Or, that you can't trust Congress acted appropriately. That's the way representative democracy works. If you don't like it, run for office. That would be more in line with the Constitutional intent than sinking to civil court for monetary damages.
Maybe you are right, maybe not. As I mentioned, there are many cases in American law, in environmental law, labor law, etc., where civil actions brought against the executive branch, by citizens with standing and grievance, have led to injunctions forcing the executive to do the right thing, even, no especially, in cases where it flouted legislative will, knowing that the legislature was too fractured/ununified to cite it for contempt.
To me, this looks like just such a case. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: I'd favor indemnifying the telcos... said by huntml:As I mentioned, there are many cases in American law, in environmental law, labor law, etc., where civil actions brought against the executive branch, by citizens Again, you're mixing examples. Filing suit against the executive branch would be the "normal" Constitutional process. Skipping that to impact a business that followed the executive branch in good faith looks like a cheap shot.
Mark | |
|
| | | | | | huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ | said by amigo_boy:They pursued criminal court first? How would you feel about the police punishing illicit drug makers in civil court, foregoing criminal court, just because it's easier? The Goldman's didn't do that, did they? The matter is quite a different one, as demonstrated by this adminstration's announcement that they *will not allow the DOJ to execute criminal contempt citations* issued by Congress in the Firingate investigation.
This administration, clearly, has no interest in allowing any oversight over its actions, even oversight that is provided for in the Constitution. So yes, let these cases go forward and let us see what comes of them.
What are you afraid of?
Like the Goldmans having their day in criminal court. Or, the police trying illicit drug makers in criminal court. So you would have to hold, in order to be consistent, then, that since the state tried a criminal case against O.J. and it failed, the civil cases should not have been brought forward, wouldn't you?
Look, like I said, the ability to take people to civil court in torte actions, in response to alleged damages, is a fundamental part of American jurisprudence, predating even the Constitution, going back into English common law. And like I said, if these people don't have cases or standing, the cases will be tossed. This, too, as I said, is the way the *law works in this country.*
*You* are the one who wants to deny these people their day in court without even a hearing to determine merit or standing, which is completely antithetical to American judispredential history. | |
| | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: I'd favor indemnifying the telcos... said by huntml:So you would have to hold, in order to be consistent, then, that since the state tried a criminal case against O.J. and it failed, the civil cases should not have been brought forward, wouldn't you? C'mon. Saying that trying a criminal case in criminal court before proceeding to civil court (or, worse, skipping criminal court all together) is the natural course one would expect. That doesn't mean one can't seek damages in civil court -- even as a result of criminal actions that can't be proven. The difference is that the Goldmans at least tried to prove criminality. They didn't skip to civil court just because it was "easy."
said by huntml: I said, the ability to take people to civil court in torte actions, in response to alleged damages, is a fundamental part of American jurisprudence, And I said AT&T customers have a right to sue AT&T for breach of contract. Why hasn't that happened? It seems like a lot of activists seeking to make political points rather than those in a contractual relationship seeking remedy.
The reason that won't happen is because the court would say nobody can prove damages, and that they can "vote with their feet" by walking to the clearly marked exits.
What the pro-civil court crowd wants is to try a criminal case in civil court. They don't care about damages to AT&T customers. They want to assert that *everyone* is a victim (of a broken contract they weren't a party to). They can't rise to the level of criminal court, so they sink to the lower standard of civil court.
Like I said, if the police used civil court to punish drug dealers because criminal court is "too haaaard," the same people screaming about that too.
Mark | |
|
| | | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| The public can't bring criminal charges or launch investigations--- only the Government can... So if the Government is not interested in investigating itself, or prosecuting, then the ONLY choice citizens have IS to file a civil lawsuit.
It's not wrong. It's the RIGHT course of action!
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: I'd favor indemnifying the telcos... said by KrK:The public can't bring criminal charges or launch investigations--- only the Government can... So if the Government is not interested in investigating itself, or prosecuting, then the ONLY choice citizens have IS to file a civil lawsuit. The public can bring suit against the government. Has that happened? Also, how easy does it have to be to follow the natural course of investigating and trying criminal actions? At what level do you throw in the towel and resort to the lower standards of civil court?
That's what seems unseemly to me. It reminds me of when Clinton Whitewater investigators couldn't come up with any dirt, and unwittingly struck the lottery with a personal shortcoming. Jackpot. They had what they wanted. Something to give the President a black eye with. It didn't matter if it was the right thing to do, or served any purpose, or helped the country, or repaired anyone who'd been wronged. It was just politics at that point.
What's happening now smells a lot the same to me. Rationalize it any way you want. It's legal. It's too hard to do the right way. You're really just getting your licks in any way you can.
Mark
Mark | |
| | | | | | | huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ
1 edit | Re: I'd favor indemnifying the telcos... said by amigo_boy:The public can bring suit against the government. Has that happened? Sure, but there is the matter of standing. In national security cases, it is very difficult for citizens to prove standing against the government, because the ordinary rules of discovery don't apply (due to state secret law).
This has been shown in a number of cases previously where citizens of this country *did* bring actions directly against the government, only to have those actions thrown out because the evidence they needed to prove standing was withheld by the government on national security grounds--couldn't *prove* they were spied on in violation of the law because the evidence that they were was not release do to national security/state secret assertions. A legal Catch-22.
In these cases, the plaitiffs *have* been able to demonstrate potential harm and standing, because they have the evidence of telco employees and leaked telco memos, neither of which can be quashed by the government (though I'm sure they wish they could). | |
| | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: I'd favor indemnifying the telcos... said by huntml:In these cases, the plaitiffs *have* been able to demonstrate potential harm and standing, because they have the evidence of telco employees and leaked telco memos, neither of which can be quashed by the government (though I'm sure they wish they could). Why can't that evidence be used in a lawsuit against the government? Your whole point is that the government withholds the evidence. Now the evidence is present without dependence on the government. So, the obvious question is why the lawsuit is targeting the telcos instead of the government.
My contention is that it's just because "it's easy."
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: I'd favor indemnifying the telcos... said by amigo_boy:Why can't that evidence be used in a lawsuit against the government? Your whole point is that the government withholds the evidence. Now the evidence is present without dependence on the government. So, the obvious question is why the lawsuit is targeting the telcos instead of the government. The evidence they have is direct evidence against the telcos, and only secondarily against the government, insofar as it points to government actions to get the telcos to commit illegal acts. It would be much harder to use this evidence against the government directly, almost like hearsay evidence.
Plus, these plaintiffs were in a legal/business/contractual relationship with the telcos, not the government.
From a legal strategic standpoint, with the evidence they have--direct evidence from former telco employee(s) and telco memos--it makes much more sense to bring the actions against the telcos and not against the government. The telcos, after all, cannot hide behind state secrets/national security. If these cases are certified, there *will* be meaningful discovery. | |
|
| | | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by amigo_boy:The public can bring suit against the government. Yes, I said that.Also, how easy does it have to be to follow the natural course of investigating and trying criminal actions? At what level do you throw in the towel and resort to the lower standards of civil court? What do you mean? See, the public, or even a group, cannot conduct a criminal investigation. They cannot bring or press charges, only a a government law-enforcement/prosecutors can. The "natural course" for an investigation by citizens IS civil court, unfortunately.
That's what seems unseemly to me. It reminds me of when Clinton Whitewater investigators couldn't come up with any dirt, and unwittingly struck the lottery with a personal shortcoming. Jackpot. They had what they wanted. Something to give the President a black eye with. It didn't matter if it was the right thing to do, or served any purpose, or helped the country, or repaired anyone who'd been wronged. It was just politics at that point. Well no argument there.... Unlimited budget, authority, almost no oversight if any and very political... "Special Persecutor" I used to joke back then.... Another term for it is "Political Witch-Hunt" which it certainly was.
What's happening now smells a lot the same to me. Rationalize it any way you want. It's legal. It's too hard to do the right way. You're really just getting your licks in any way you can. And that's where I differ. It is "the right way" as there's no other way open to us. It's not about getting the licks in if you will... It's about putting a stop to some serious BS, IMHO.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: I'd favor indemnifying the telcos... said by KrK:See, the public, or even a group, cannot conduct a criminal investigation. They don't have to, do they? For example, inmates all the time file suits against law enforcement (police or corrections) for violating their rights in various ways, seeking injunctions. If the administration is so clearly violating the law, and you have evidence from a former telco worker, why can't you file suit in federal court against the administration?
Mark | |
|
| | | said by huntml:The immunity proposals are less about protecting the telcos' bottom line; that's secondary. What they are really about is quashing the lawsuits so the details of what the administration did/is doing will never_see the light of day. Nope, like pretty much everything else in Washington, it's about political posturing. You can be sure that everything you see from either side of the aisle for the next year is geared towards winning votes in the upcoming election. Dodd barely mentions the telcos, instead focusing fire on 'this administration'. When this administration is out of office, no one will care anymore about what the telcos did.
--
What's certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for (2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of (1) - Ann Coulter | |
| | | huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ
4 edits | Re: I'd favor indemnifying the telcos... said by footballdude:
Nope, like pretty much everything else in Washington, it's about political posturing. You can be sure that everything you see from either side of the aisle for the next year is geared towards winning votes in the upcoming election.
Well, it *is* politics. It's no surprise that political posturing is a big piece of it.
quote:
Dodd barely mentions the telcos, instead focusing fire on 'this administration'.
And reasonably so, in my view. I am sure that the telcos are lobbying behind the scenes for immunity, but it's only the administration and its congressional allies who are publicly pushing for it.
On the other hand, Dodd didn't spare the telcos completely from criticism. His comments about their having legal departments who were not made up of first-year lawyers and pro bono workers, about Qwest's different stance from the other telcos, etc., were spot-on.
quote:
When this administration is out of office, no one will care anymore about what the telcos did.
I disagree profoundly. I think that part of the reason the telcos have been so quiet in not publicly lobbying for immunity is because they *know* that were they to do so it would have tremendous negative PR consequences.
I believe that this is ultimately going to pass, because the administration desperately wants it, and because Congress is largely bought and paid for, and a bunch of pussies to boot (you'd think that the Dems would've learned from how they rolled over on Iraq and how it's damaged their credibility, but that's another post); but I know that I personally am not going to forget, and I think that a lot of people feel the same way I do. | |
|
| JPLPremium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:1 | said by huntml:...but it'll never happen. The reason? The immunity proposals are less about protecting the telcos' bottom line; that's secondary. What they are really about is quashing the lawsuits so the details of what the administration did/is doing will never_see the light of day. No, that's not it - it's designed to allow corporations to help out with these types of endeavors. If the companies don't get immunity for something like this, then what chance will there ever be that these companies will ever again help out with a program like this? Almost zero. This is no different than the attempts to get the president's national security advisor to testify before Congress. The nsa isn't a cabinet officer - he/she is a special advisor to the president, and so is outside the jurisdiction of Congressional inquiry. It's absolutely critical that the president get unvarnished information from his advisors, but if an advisor believes that he/she may be called to publicly testify about any such information, they will be less inclined to give truthful assessments to the president.
This is really no different. Open the companies up to prosecution, and the chance that they'll ever willingly assist in matters of national security vanish. | |
| | |
See 9 replies to this post |
| | Love the Old School Logo Nice find | |
| | | Democrats worse Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.)
Didn't the democrats run on the jingle " take back the country" seems like they meant take back the country to the Mcarthy era. Seems like too many isms in the US
If you donot support any govermental policies you are traitor
If you donot vote for Hillary you are sexist
If you donot vote for hussian you are racist
if you donot vote for romney you are religionist.
Seems like in the next elections policywise there won't be any diofference betwwen the repuliCONs or the DEMONcrats LOL...so much for change | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
| | politiks ATT's check to Harry Reid's relection campaign must have bounced. | |
| | | | Re: politiks Either that or he realized he could be charged as an accessory after the fact. | |
|
 rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| It's quiet here today Now that they stopped this from going through until January all the anti American , pro corporate, strip us of our right to privacy posters are pretty quiet today. Again when a bill or law doesn't go your way you blame it on the party that disagrees with your political point of view. This is about that the current administration breaking the law. you all seem to overlook that fact. well the way the laws are written now it is clear they broke the law and Dodd simply is calling them on it. it astonishes me how a number of people here on this web site find it ok for the government to break the law. the terrorist argument is complete bull and the easiest example of this is that they were doing this well before 9/11 and their spying did nothing to stop it. it would appear that they were not looking for terrorists but maybe spying on Americans who had a different view of things or who maybe they were trying to ruin. they broke the current law and the President wants to offer them immunity. WRONG. if it were Clinton you would be going nuts. What about Specters bill? do you like that? if the Telcos get sued than the tax payers should pay the fine and not the Telcos. you like that? research it. the current administration wants the government to pay all fines levied. WTF? | |
| | elijah6Premium
join:2002-02-14
Lake Wales, FL Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: It's quiet here today
The neotards like to swarm to sites that publish comments contrary to their ideas. They want to make it seem like there's a whole bunch of people who share view when, in reality it's only a very small percentage of mouth breathers.
fuckin' cowards. | |
| | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by rit56:Again when a bill or law doesn't go your way you blame it on the party that disagrees with your political point of view. It seems like you're the one making this excessively partisan. I'm a registered Democrat, but support what has happened, and support amnesty if the President isn't found guilty of doing anything illegal. I can see AT&T customers suing for breach of contract. But, that's about it as far as I can see. Others had no contract with AT&T. There is no presumption of privacy on the Internet (the reason SSL, SSH and sftp were created), and it doesn't make sense to me to apply punishment to the telcos that can't be applied to the alledged ringleader (Bush).
I think it's time to move on and apply rational controls to what is happening.
said by rit56:This is about that the current administration breaking the law. If that were true you should find cause for a court of Impeachment. The fact that you can't rise to that level, but continue to make the assertion speaks volumes about your own respect for the law.
Mark | |
| | | rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY | Re: It's quiet here today the current and former Attorney General don't think torture is bad. Do you think they would prosecute anyone from this administration? They are corrupt puppets. | |
|
goddan
join:2001-01-15
Quaker Hill, CT | A Presidential Pardon? If immunity doesn't pass, can Bush accomplish the same thing with a presidential pardon? I don't think I've ever heard of a pardon for a corporation, but it sure sounds like a very Republican thing to do.
Or would a pardon only let them off the hook for criminal charges, and not stop civil suits? | |
| |
See 10 replies to this post | |
ackman
join:2000-10-04
Acworth, GA | A true patriot Finally, a true patriot stands up for the US Constitution in Congress. Chris Dodd is my hero!! | |
| |  firephotoKDEPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA
·Frontier Communi..
| Re: A true patriot Deep Throat.. errr Oral Hatch.. umm Orrin, said that AT&T were the true patriots and we need to protect them.
Dodd did a good thing and hopefully it won't be necessary again. If AT&T is guilty they knew they were guilty when they were doing it so they shouldn't expect a get out of jail free card just because they were doing what the president said. The president isn't a king or a dictator they're just the president in a land of law. | |
| | | ackman
join:2000-10-04
Acworth, GA
1 edit | Re: A true patriot said by firephoto:Deep Throat.. errr Oral Hatch.. umm Orrin, said that AT&T were the true patriots and we need to protect them. Dodd did a good thing and hopefully it won't be necessary again. If AT&T is guilty they knew they were guilty when they were doing it so they shouldn't expect a get out of jail free card just because they were doing what the president said. The president isn't a king or a dictator they're just the president in a land of law. Where Mr. Bush went wrong was to assume he was an imperial leader, rather than an elected (appointed) representative of the people, illegitimate election(s) aside, with the purpose of protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States. Failing at that most basic precept of his office is the least of his crimes. Like Hitler did to the German people, Americans were conned into being afraid of turning every corner, which created an environment that enabled such extreme measures. I still laugh when certain family members spout the Faux News rhetoric "if we don't fight them there, we'll have to fight them here". What may ultimately take Bush down is when the detail of the wiretapping reaches full daylight, that he actually contracted AT&T to spy on domestic activity prior to 9/11/2001. Granting AT&T immunity might only eliminate the ability of a special prosecutor to plea bargain with the principles in order to expose the Bush crimes. Will be a fun year in 2008 if the democrats can grow some cajones and use what limited power a slim majority can muster. | |
|
huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ
2 edits | The government says... ...that amendments to the wireless wiretapping laws are needed to close gaps that present the nation with severe holes in its data-gathering ability that endanger national security.
The only difference between a bill the president has signalled willingness to sign and one he has signalled that he will veto is the inclusion of retroactive immunity.
Therefore, one can only conclude that retroactive immunity for the telcos is more important to the president than amending wireless wiretapping law going forward in order to close a potentially dire hole in our data-gathering ability.
One wonders why. | |
| |
See 9 replies to this post | |
 wruckman Ruckman.net
join:2007-10-25
Northwood, OH | Grrr The government needs to keep their filthy paws off our private data and voice traffic. National security? Try political security.
We need to dump this garbage representative democracy and move to a true democracy. And trash the electoral college.
Let us decide. Not the fools that were elected. They don't know jack! They are only out to protect their pocket books.
--
William Ruckman
»ruckman.net | |
| KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | OMG The phone calls and emails actually worked? Wow.
I'll bet he got a lot of P.O'ed calls and emails, and that lead him to do this.... | |
| | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: OMG The phone calls and emails actually worked? said by KrK:I'll bet he got a lot of P.O'ed calls and emails, and that lead him to do this.... I'm telling ya, they're going to wait till the last second and then say they had to vote for it because FISA would sunset. They'll have the upper hand. They'll be able to say that the vocal self-described freedom fighters have nothing to complain about they supposedly(?) want greater oversight and safety from overreaching government. That's what the amendments would do. If FISA sunsets there would be no oversight. "So, how can those in favor of greater oversight complain?"
That's how it will go down. The politicians don't see it as imminently serious as you do. Even Dodd is just playing a part in a well-choreographed play. In the end almost everyone can say they voted against it, and for it.
I saw this in the early 90s with the so-called Assault Weapon ban. A friend of mine wrote Senator McCain urging him to vote against it. McCain replied that he opposed the ban. My friend's mother wrote McCain urging him to support the AW ban. She received a reply outlining McCain's support for gun control.
Mark | |
|
| |
|
