how-to block ads
|
huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ
 ·Comcast
3 edits | reply to JPL
Re: I'd favor indemnifying the telcos...
If you feel there is a case to be made to give the telcos and ISPs indemity for helping out the government, then make it, and get the law passed.
If you think that the government needs to have double-super-secret access to telecom traffic in such a way that there is effectively no oversight over what they are collecting/monitoring and what they are doing with it, as a matter of national security, then make a case for it and get laws passed allowing for it.
But don't make those laws retroactive, so there is no way to find out whether things that were done in the past were legal or not.
Even if I knew what the government was doing with the telcos and agreed that it was necessary, I still would not agree with how they went about it and how they are going about trying to cover it up now.
We live in a nation of laws first, men (and the supersecret spy organizations they work for) second.
The primacy of the rule of law is probably the most important principle of our system of government. What they are doing undermines the rule of law, and is a very, very bad precedent for this country. | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| said by huntml  :We live in a nation of laws first, men (and the supersecret spy organizations they work for) second. The primacy of the rule of law is probably the most important principle of our system of government. What they are doing undermines the rule of law, and is a very, very bad precedent for this country. I chuckle every time I read this. This nation of laws provides most naturally for Congressional investigation, impeachment hearings and lengthy prison sentences for administration members who violated the law.
If you can't rise to that level of the system, it's childish to resort to civil court and preach about "a nation of laws." This would be like the police using civil court to get DUI convictions because "it's easier." If that was happening you guys would be having an absolute fit because it violates your perception of the "rule of law."
Mark | |
huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ
·Comcast
2 edits | said by amigo_boy :
This would be like the police using civil court to get DUI convictions because "it's easier." If that was happening you guys would be having an absolute fit because it violates your perception of the "rule of law."
I absolutely agree with you, Mark, that this approach of going at the telcos in civil court is, well, bullshit. I *wish* that Congress had the balls to really look into this.
But! It is *legal*, and it looks like the only way we have at the moment to (1) find out what they really are/were doing and (2) *begin* the process of bringing anyone who violated law to account (because I firmly believe there are smoking guns that might be uncovered during that trial, else, it's hard to understand why the administration is so determined to prevent them).
So, let's just see where this all goes, shall we? | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by huntml :I absolutely agree with you, Mark, that this approach of going at the telcos in civil court is, well, bullshit. I *wish* that Congress had the balls to really look into this. Thanks. I'm glad to know we agree on something. That's always a start. I also think it's good to realize both sides have good intentions (nobody's intentionally trying to subvert the nation).
It sounds to me like Congress did look into it and has amended the law to legalize it, with more controls. Why is that not good enough? (Re, my other post about previous expedient actions in this country that were excused when made legal).
said by huntml :So, let's just see where this all goes, shall we? I'll wager money that the telcos get immunity. It will be packaged into omnibus legislation and politicians will have an "out" by saying there were too many good things that needed passage. "We'll have to go back and fix that one, (wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more...)." Or, they'll let FISA come close to sunsetting, and preserving it will be the expedient excuse for accepting immunity ("but, we'll have to go back and fix that...").
And there's always Presidential immunity. If Bill Clinton can pardon a bunch of convicted drug dealers, I'm sure President Bush can swing something for the telcos. It won't be hard for the federal courts to find that it applies to civil matters (when those taking the civil route are doing so because they can't get the criminal route to work for them).
To me, it's a given. They (even the politicians ostensibly opposed to it) are just looking for a way to pass it. It's going to be like how the Brady Bill passed (Bob Dole on the floor passing it by himself after all the Senators went on holiday recess).
Mark | |
|
