woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
 ·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: If you don't agree with EFF and want to contact Congress....
said by TK Junk Mail
"I am going to contact members of the conference committee to support telco immunity.
Not to beat a dead horse, but why should the telcos who obviously broke laws be given a pass. I don't want to hear it will cost us money in the end, because how can you attach a cost protecting our right$ I Bushes rhetoric seems to suggest that the only way he can protect us is by violating our rights and then giving immunity to those that did. So if he vetoes the bill isn't he dooming us to the terrorist? 
--
BlooMe |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| said by woody7  :why should the telcos who obviously broke laws be given a pass. Civil court isn't where you prosecute broken laws and criminal behavior. It's where groups with political agendas bleed someone dry with class action lawsuits just because they can't accomplish their goal through criminal and impeachment courts.
Don't you find it odd that DSL Reports couches its article as "if you support things like due process..." when a rational person would say that using civil court to accomplish what can't be accomplished through criminal/impeachment court is essentially circumventing due process?
That's the problem I have with all this. I'd be perfectly happy if telco customers and investors (with a contractual relationship) sued telcos if they could prove damages. But, this is just a bunch of unrelated parties (with an agenda) using customers and investors to pursue "broken laws" instead of actual damages. To me, that's as much of an abuse of the system as the President and telcos are accused of.
Mark |
|
firephoto
KDE
Premium
join:2003-03-18
·Verizon west (ex G..
| reply to woody7
God and Country!
TelCos or Die! |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | reply to amigo_boy
the "agenda" is the rule of law.
and again, try to refocus on the issue and not continue with a sad attempt to dilute the illegality or process of obtaining justice. no one except TKJunkmail is buying it. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by morbo :the "agenda" is the rule of law. The law has been followed. The issues debated by the public and on the floor of government. Surveillance laws modified to better accommodate the President's claimed needs. The "pragmatic" actions that occurred prior to this were found not to rise to the level of impeachment. And, likewise, the DoJ didn't find it reasonable to file criminal charges.
It seems to me like the laws are working, but opponents of immunity don't like it. Therefore they want to use *civil* court to accomplish what they can't through the process this far. That's a good reason for immunity! They're perverting the system in the same way they claim the President and telcos did.
And, remember, this is hardly without precedent. Both Lincoln and Roosevelt "broke the laws" when they considered it necessary for the public interest. Their actions were later made legal by amending the laws. Those who carried out those Presidents' will weren't sued in civil court just because those who opposed those Presidents couldn't deal with the fact that the system worked in a way they wished it hadn't.
Mark |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
1 edit | reply to amigo_boy
I would agree somewhat but with a different angle.
You punish a corporation by making it pay money. You can't put the corporation in jail to serve time. However, you can put the executives that gave the order to follow this criminal behavior in jail.
Therefore I say you punish the corporation by fining them (and allowing them pay those they violated through court actions) and then you procecute in criminal court the individuals responsible for making an illegal request happen.
Without this immunity bill I am sure that is exactly what will happen. With it, none of it will. |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | reply to amigo_boy
- AT&T knowingly and willingly broke the law
- Civil court is part of the legal system, despite your protests and attempt to discredit it
- Comparing Bush's actions to those of Lincoln and Roosevelt is both impossible and insulting. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| 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! |
|
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" ?? |
|
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. |
|
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.... |
|
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 |
|
