how-to block ads
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to huntml
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
·Comcast
| reply to amigo_boy
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. | |
huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to amigo_boy
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. | |
huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ
·Comcast
| reply to amigo_boy
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*. | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to huntml
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 | |
huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to amigo_boy
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). | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to huntml
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 | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to huntml
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 | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to amigo_boy
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!) | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| 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 | |
huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ
·Comcast
| reply to amigo_boy
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. | |
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to huntml
I'm in flavor of intensifying tacos.
said by huntml :Which do you think is the most likely reason? That would be Door # None, Monty.
The sheer volume of data collected in a day is beyond description. The hardware and programming to sort through it is a major undertaking. At the end there will still be several times more data of interest than there will be manpower to pursue it.
There are other issues such as the dozens of decryption al-gore-rhythms (there he is AGAIN screwing things up) that will to be applied to may thousands of potential candidates. Translating IP addresses into people, prioritizing k-porn, domestic and foreign threats, illegal material info, spicy political tidbits.... A single week will be gigabytes beyond counting.
Another reason to not to worry about Quest is that they probably peer with the other telcos somewhere, so the NSA (Naked Scottish Army?) will just get the data from friendler pipes. Besides, the Quest honchos will get theirs one day for having the unmitigated GALL to tell the NSA no.
Would YOU like to tell the NSA no? Henry Reid doesn't.
NV
--
My children used to Speak in Tongues. But after years of Speech Therapy, English is their First Language! | |
huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ
·Comcast
| said by Noah Vail :That would be Door # None, Monty. The sheer volume of data collected in a day is beyond description. The hardware and programming to sort through it is a major undertaking. At the end there will still be several times more data of interest than there will be manpower to pursue it. There are other issues such as the dozens of decryption al-gore-rhythms (there he is AGAIN screwing things up) that will to be applied to may thousands of potential candidates. Translating IP addresses into people, prioritizing k-porn, domestic and foreign threats, illegal material info, spicy political tidbits.... A single week will be gigabytes beyond counting. So what are you saying: that those stories of NSA black boxes, etc., are just fictions--no one could possibly examine all that data anyway, so it's highly unlikely that anyone would bother to build a system to access it all? Or are you saying that there's so much data that they can't possibly examine more than a tiny fraction of it, therefore there's no reason, statistically speaking, for any particular person to feel intruded upon, and thus any need, really, for oversight of whatever it is they're doing?
Either way, quite simply, your argument, well, it sucks, for reasons I won't bother to detail since anyone who'd make such an argument probably wouldn't be willing to entertain or able to understand them.
Another reason to not to worry about Quest is that they probably peer with the other telcos somewhere, so the NSA (Naked Scottish Army?) will just get the data from friendler pipes. Certainly there's a lot of peering, and virtually, maybe even actually, nobody's data goes through just one ISP or telco's pipes.
Just curious: what percentage of all the rest of the pipes in the system do you think they'd have to have tapped to be ~99+% sure that they were getting access to all of ~95% of data originating out of or terminating in Qwests IP/POTS networks (99/95 being a typical, generally accepted statistical criterion corresponding to 'high confidence')?
In order not to come back at Qwest they'd have to have very high confidence they had all their traffic covered elsewhere, wouldn't they?
So...maybe, the fact that they apparently didn't feel the need to come back to Qwest with a FISA warrant is only evidence that they basically had everything covered everywhere else anyway?
I'm not sure if this is intended to make me feel better or worse.
Besides, the Quest honchos will get theirs one day for having the unmitigated GALL to tell the NSA no. I'm sure you're right about that; in fact, it already appears to be happening. Can't be *too* obvious about it though.
Would YOU like to tell the NSA no? Henry Reid doesn't. I'm sure you're right about that too. | |
NetLarry
join:2007-03-18
Johnstown, PA
| reply to Noah Vail
said by Noah Vail :said by huntml :Which do you think is the most likely reason? That would be Door # None, Monty. Would YOU like to tell the NSA no? Henry Reid doesn't. NV ........
Makes me wonder what the NSA heard on Harry Reid's line... | |
|
