amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to morbo
Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress....
said by morbo  :- AT&T knowingly and willingly broke the law And yet the President wasn't impeached. Not even *censured*. Nor were officers of AT&T weren't indicted on criminal charges. And, the law was expanded, justifying the premise that the President acted judiciously.
said by morbo :- Civil court is part of the legal system, despite your protests and attempt to discredit it Why do district attorneys charge drug dealers in criminal court instead of the more obvious (to self-styled freedom fighters) civil court?
said by morbo :- Comparing Bush's actions to those of Lincoln and Roosevelt is both impossible and insulting. This is an example of how self-styled freedom fighters reap the benefits of past "expediencies" while demanding a level of perfect that never existed (and, quite likely, we're lucky didn't).
There were plenty of people who opposed Lincoln's and Roosevelt's "expediency." It only looks to you that such a position would be absurd because so much time has elapsed, and we've accepted they were right. You simply can't accept that President Bush has been similarly vindicated.
Mark |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| quote:
And yet the President wasn't impeached. Not even *censured*. Nor were officers of AT&T weren't indicted on criminal charges. And, the law was expanded, justifying the premise that the President acted judiciously.
I'm sure that has nothing to do with corruption and systemic dysfunction. quote:
You simply can't accept that President Bush has been similarly vindicated.
Vindicated by a broken justice system and partisan zealots? Oh yeah! Huge win for the people! |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| reply to Surfinusa
said by Surfinusa :said by TKJunkMail :said by Surfinusa :That's all and well. But it doesn't sit right with me that people are snooping in on my phone calls or my Internet experience. It is as if the post office were to open my envelopes and read my letters to family and friends. The immunity provision has NOTHING to do with the parts of the Bill that affect spying going forward. Your concerns about spying were addressed in the FISA bill. There will be oversight. The immunity part of the bill is all about punishing those who merely followed a government request to help catch terrorists in the making. For that they should be thanked, and not punished. As long as there is proper over site I am not really concerned. What makes you think there's going to be oversight? There hasn't been any oversight up until now, and the democrat leadership has now decided that the illegal activities of both the telcos and the administration should be swept under the rug.
There isn't proper oversight in this bill. The provisions for "oversight" have no teeth. |
|
SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude :said by TKJunkMail :
...
The immunity part of the bill is all about punishing those who merely followed a government request to help catch terrorists in the making. For that they should be thanked, and not punished.
no, the immunity part is the Bush administration trying to prevent any accountability for illegally spying on U.S. citizens. Since the 70s we have had a law called FISA that is quite clear about when the telcos can provide information to the government - when the government presents a valid court order or certification that the request to turn over information is legal. Nearly every legal expert that has voiced an opinion agrees with this. If the govt complied with FISA and provided the proper authorization to the telcos, the telcos have nothing to worry about, they will win their legal cases. If the govt did not comply with FISA and just asked the companies to cooperate "because George or Dick sez so", then the telcos clearly violated the law that was in effect at the time. The fact that both Bush and the telcos are pushing so hard for immunity seems to pretty strongly imply they both broke the law and they both know it. You just hit the nail directly on the head. They're pushing for immunity so hard because along with Commander Bunnypants and his entire misadministration, the telcos, did, in fact, break the law. |
|
Surfinusa
Premium
join:2001-02-08
| reply to JakCrow
said by JakCrow :What makes you think there's going to be oversight? There hasn't been any oversight up until now, and the democrat leadership has now decided that the illegal activities of both the telcos and the administration should be swept under the rug. There isn't proper oversight in this bill. The provisions for "oversight" have no teeth. To be honest I can't know for sure if there is any oversight even though they say there is.
So I am not going to worry about something at this point I have no control over. |
|
PhoenixDown
-- Wants FIOS
Premium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
clubs:   | reply to amigo_boy
Mark, this is the last resort after every time to address the issue with the government resulted in a "sorry its national security, go scratch" response. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode :I'm sure that has nothing to do with corruption and systemic dysfunction. See »Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you?
Mark |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | See: I still think you're painfully incorrect. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to amigo_boy
look, this is really really simple:
1.FISA was the law at the time these activities took place (that's why this is being called retroactive immunity)
2. FISA requires the govt to present a valid and legal court order or certification suppporting their request
3. if the conditions of 2 are not met, the telecoms ARE BREAKING THE LAW by providing info to the govt
all I've heard the govt or telecoms say it that the govt assured them it was a legal request - nobody has ever stated the govt provided a lawful court order or certification, most likely because they never did. |
|
satellite68
join:2007-04-11
Louisville, KY
| reply to amigo_boy
quote:
And yet the President wasn't impeached. Not even *censured*. Nor were officers of AT&T weren't indicted on criminal charges. And, the law was expanded, justifying the premise that the President acted judiciously
For now, maybe. Time will tell if that "truth" you defend holds up over the course of history.
I'm wagering it won't.
BTW-basing your entire argument on the premise that so far nothing has happened is purely a fallacy. A new President and/or new Congress may disagree totally with what is passed as law now. |
|
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T Southwest
1 edit | reply to nasadude
said by nasadude :look, this is really really simple: actually that's a myth. You and others stampede to this conclusion that laws were broken, and you have convinced yourselves that the truth of this is so obvious that it could only be corruption, lobbyist payoffs, and arrogant Constitution-trampling leadership that caused it to happen.
Take a look at the Wikipedia article on this:
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warran···troversy
Holy cripes! I don't have time to get through all that complexity. This is a difficult, winding road through a mass of legalities. And there are differing opinions.
Now, do you still think it's "really really simple" ?? |
|
MysticGogeta
The Robot Devil
Premium
join:2005-03-14
League City, TX
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to TKJunkMail
I do not support teleco immunity how dare they wiretap lines with out warrants. Do we live in a 3rd world country with no rights? You might as well have a stranger in your house next to you listening when you make phone calls.
Theres a famous quote from Benjamin Franklin that you should hear "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "
--
Team Discovery-Join the fight |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
2 edits | reply to amigo_boy
Good old Amigo is at it again. So where is that information I requested Mr self styled freedom fighter. You are championing for his cause but don't want to live up to what it stands for? Can someone give me an H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E. Whats that spell, well hell he's heard it 100 times over. Anyhow Amigo, if Whistle Blowers aren't given protection anymore due to this administration then ATT and Verizon shouldn't be either. After all, they spilled the secrets of Americans as would someone who tells on their company for wrong doing. As with that point, here's the 42nd time.
Name
Address
Telephone Number
Credit Report
List of all sites visited
List of all files downloaded
Social Security Number
Password to Financial Accounts
Password To your computer files
We're waiting. You want to fight for this issue, now put out already. I'm not letting it go until we see you put your MOUTH WHERE YOUR RHETORIC STANDS. |
|
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
2 edits | reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :The immunity part of the bill is all about punishing those who merely followed a government request to help catch terrorists in the making. For that they should be thanked, and not punished. What the government did was illegal in requesting it in the first place and what the telecom did was equally illegal by giving it. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be a need to give them retroactive immunity. What the telecoms should have done was tell the government to go fly a kite made of their request until they get a judicial order...that is what the FISA court is for to begin with.
Tapping phones and internet connections have yet to produce one credible instance where doing so prevented any type of terrorist attack. It's too easy to simply encrypt the data to make the actual tap worthless from an intelligence purpose.
As far as oversight goes, that too will be a joke. There was suppose to be oversight from the begin of FISA and the whole "super secret court". Yet we still got in to the predicament we are in today thanks to oversight or lack thereof. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | reply to PhoenixDown
Don't you understand? According to Mark, because you couldn't get past the stonewalling of the nation's intelligence operations to get to the truth, correct the vast systemic corruption inherent in our system long enough to hold a major corporation accountable, and impeach the president, it means nobody did anything wrong.... |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
1 edit | reply to cdru
said by cdru :If it wasn't [illegal], there wouldn't be a need to give them retroactive immunity. That sounds a lot like the "if you have nothing to hide, why do you refuse to be searched?" There are a lot of good reasons to try to protect yourself from a civil suit. Doing so doesn't mean "you obviously did something wrong."
To me, this kind of imbalanced viewpoint (which seems to pervade the anti-immunity crowd) is precisely a justification for the telcos to seek it.
Mark |
|
jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | reply to jc100
huh? |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude :look, this is really really simple: 1.FISA was the law at the time these activities took place (that's why this is being called retroactive immunity) 2. FISA requires the govt to present a valid and legal court order or certification suppporting their request 3. if the conditions of 2 are not met, the telecoms ARE BREAKING THE LAW by providing info to the govt But, it's equally simple:
1. Property laws or the Neutrality Act were the law at the time of Lincoln's and Roosevelt's activities.
2. Those laws didn't even provide for government to make a request (to free slaves or in-kind exchanges of military goods). I.e., nothing but the letter of the law applied.
3. When the conditions of those 2 were not met, we didn't debate granting immunity to those who carried out the President's directives. The problem laid with the Presidents, who (like Bush) worked to amend the law to better accommodate their actions.
Mark |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to satellite68
said by satellite68 :BTW-basing your entire argument on the premise that so far nothing has happened is purely a fallacy. A new President and/or new Congress may disagree totally with what is passed as law now. At which point they can hold Senate hearings and indict corporate officers, etc. The proposed immunity doesn't prevent that from happening does it?
I mean, can we apply your logic in reverse by saying that, if a future President and/or Congress *doesn't* take action, that the EFF will have to repay the telcos for the cost of defending themselves in civil court?
Mark |
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :The immunity part of the bill is all about punishing those who merely followed a government request to help catch terrorists in the making. For that they should be thanked, and not punished. Even if they knew that request was less-than-legal to follow through with at that time? |
|
