fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to amigo_boy
Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you?
You're too smug for your own good... and it will ultimately hurt not only you, but others that think the same way you do.
Were you around for the Ford Presidency? .. you know why the man pardoned Nixon, right?
If you know the answer to that question, then you will know why Bush has not been impeached at this time.
It's no secret that we have a retard in charge of this country (unless one's head is up his rear) but there are actually good reasons why he hasn't been impeached at this time.
Even many of the Bush followers regretted voting for him in the second term - that was clear just a very short time after his re-election.
Right now, for the good of the country, the man stays. The people spoke in the 2006 election that it was time to throttle the government - and did. |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| reply to amigo_boy
The republicans in congress are more interested in covering for the team than to actual stand for the rule of law.
And the telcos didn't follow the president in "good faith". They new the law specifically requires FISA warrants. Bush's wink and smile are not good enough. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy  :Are you kidding? Just because Bush "said so" or as you say, his directive, doesn't mean it's right. Then impeach the President. That's the normal course of action if you feel he abused his power. Not those who followed the President in good faith. Even the laws that have existed at the time support that. See »Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you?
Mark |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to JakCrow
said by JakCrow :Oh yes. Those pesky polls that don't support your opinion. They don't mean anything. It's not just issues I disagree with. Polls make me uncomfortable even when I agree. You could take a poll "should the government do something to stop hurricanes?" and a majority would say "yes." In the early 90s polls were used to fuel the anti-gun craze. "A majority believe gun-related crime is on the rise" (when it had been falling for 5 years).
said by JakCrow :Section 408 of the "Protect America Act" under the heading "Liability Defense": .. Why are you trying obfuscate a fact that is pretty clearly spelled out? But, what do you do with 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) and U.S.C. 2702(a)(3) & (c)? It's obvious those laws already granted immunity for *years*, with such weak conditions that it's unimaginable the telcos couldn't qualify. The latter was even made easier to obtain in 2006 (not just "reasonable belief" of "imminent" danger, but "good faith belief" (however unreasonable) of danager (regardless of how imminent).
So, you have to ask what the proposed immunity deal accomplishes. You're arguing that without it the telcos would have no immunity. It's absurd to believe the above two laws wouldn't apply. Therefore, what's the other alternative? To prevent the telcos from disclosing that Gonzalez certified a warrant wasn't necessary? Or, disclosing what the government told the telcos to give them "a reasonable belief" of "danger?"
Other opponents of this deal have said they believe this is the intended goal. There may be reasons to oppose it. But, it's incorrect to call it "immunity" as if immunity isn't codified in our law with such low hurdles that it can apply anytime the government wants.
IMO self-styled freedom fighters don't want to talk about it in those terms. It's so much more powerful to whip the masses into a frenzy by depicting it as immunity/no immunity. "Immunity? How dare them let people off for what was illegal" (while saying nothing about how the law already provided for immunity).
Mark |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to amigo_boy
Are you kidding?
Just because Bush "said so" or as you say, his directive, doesn't mean it's right. Bush EASILY could have gotten a warrant and done it legally.
You know what you are talking about? ... a dictator. President Bush just got done invading Iraq and removing one.
I'm sorry, but it's clear you have no idea about our laws in this country or what the constitution means. 
Rule #1 - no one is above the law. |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by JakCrow :The majority of Americans are against telco immunity. IMO polls don't mean a great deal. There was a time when a majority of Americans believed all guns should be banned. Didn't matter if it was practical or Constitutional. Oh yes. Those pesky polls that don't support your opinion. They don't mean anything.
quote:
I wonder if the majority of Americans have a clue what this immunity is about? 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) grants immunity merely if the AG certifies that a warrant isn't necessary. U.S.C. 2702(a)(3) & (c) was amended in 2006 to reduce "reasonable belief" of "imminent danger" to merely "good faith belief" of "danger" (not imminent).
It seems to me like the proposed immunity is just to short-circuit the process under which already codified immunities would be upheld, challenged in courts of appeals, etc., for years.
If the public understood this, I suspect they could care less. It doesn't sound the same in that context compared to "immunity" (as if they don't already have it).
Section 408 of the "Protect America Act" under the heading "Liability Defense":
Notwithstanding any other law, and in addition to the immunities, privileges, and defenses provided by any other source of law, no action shall lie or be maintained in any court, and no penalty, sanction, or other form of remedy or relief shall be imposed by any court or any other body, against any person for the alleged provision to an element of the intelligence community of any information (including records or other information pertaining to a customer), facilities, or any other form of assistance, during the period of time beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on the date that is the effective date of this Act, in connection with any alleged classified communications intelligence activity that the Attorney General or a designee of the Attorney General certifies, in a manner consistent with the protection of State secrets, is, was, would be, or would have been intended to protect the United States from a terrorist attack.
Why are you trying obfuscate a fact that is pretty clearly spelled out?
quote:
I think the only thing this is about is avoiding the telcos divulging the details of what they were told in order to form "good faith belief" of "danger". And, to avoid the years of litigation as the lawsuits are sent to appeals, etc.
Sorry. Not good enough for what they've done, which was eagerly allow the government to wiretapp U.S. phone lines without the required, and easily obtained, FISA warrants. That is, once again, illegal. |
|
PCDEC
join:2004-10-12
Allentown, PA | reply to TKJunkMail
It won't let me vote in the poll...
But I support our rights as citizens and do not think immunity should be offered. They broke the law and violated our privacy rights so they should be held accountable. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to Surfinusa
said by Surfinusa : You don't have to agree with the news it reports but BBR doesn't make up news it recieves it from outside sources. If you think the sources are bias that's your opinion. I don't think the sources are biased. I do think the introductions are biased, and therefore perhaps the source selection is biased.
I just think the way the introductions are so obviously biased (like a link to EFF to send a pre-concluded comment to your representatives) takes away from DSLR/BBR. It calls into question the site's integrity to providing news rather than perhaps a personal viewpoint.
Otherwise I like DSLR/BBR. The debates are friendly. People don't seem to take things personally even when comments are intended to be taken so. Nobody seems to harbor grudges (except, perhaps JC  ).
Mark |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
1 edit | reply to Jeremy in Denver
said by Jeremy in Denver :
This entire post boils down to 'Sit down, shut up, and let me have my way.' Not at all. I'm happy people are animated rather than watching DVDs and playing video games ("bread and circus", search wikipedia to see what I mean). But, the constant theme (whine, IMO) among self-styled freedom fighters is that the system doesn't deserve respect, and thus justifies perversions such as using civil court to accomplish what they can't through the natural channels the system provides for. They can't accept that they lost. It *has* to be the perversion of the system. Therefore, any perverted response is acceptable to them.
On the one hand, that's ok. Be up front about it. Let everyone know that this isn't just about immunity, it's about contempt for the system entirely. And, stop quoting Founders and speaking like *you're* the ones who care about the health of the system, and everyone else is an enemy to the system.
said by Jeremy in Denver :
You're advocating not letting that info be drug into the light. That's actually a very accurate statement. Despite the headlines and ravings, it's not about "immunity." The law provides for immunity with *very* simple conditions: 1) The AG certifies no warrant is necessary. 2) The telco had a "good faith belief" of "danger" (a lower threshold than the pre-96 "reasonable belief" of "imminent danger").
The proposed immunity is just to be immune from proving that immunity applies. It's to avoid the telcos showing Gonzalez's certification. Or, what classified information was revealed to them to form the basis of "reasonable belief."
That sounds a lot different than "immunity from breaking the law."
Mark |
|
Jeremy in Denver
@comcast.net
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :It means the Constitutional system didn't find the matters in question to rise to the level of crime that self-styled freedom fighters insist it did. Picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution you like? Which due process? Which checks and balances? See » Re: Benny said it allI don't think I'm seeing demons by simply pointing out how the system *worked*. It seems like those who insist it didn't work, and who ignore all the due process (and checks and balances) to this point, just because it wasn't in their favor, and who now run to *civil court* as the institution of choice are the ones who've gone over the edge. I'd go so far as saying that publishing editorials referring readers to biased activist organizations, to send representatives prepared statements goes one more step toward describing who's unbalanced.  Mark This entire post boils down to 'Sit down, shut up, and let me have my way.'
Must be a new Right-wing Republican talking point, trying to vilify civil court. A tangent to the idea that courts are filled with 'left wing activist librul judges'?
Hmm.
You are entitled to your belief that the system worked. You and CEO Stephenson of AT&T and Seidenberg of Verison all think it worked. I personally don't think it worked -- AT&T violated _my_ personal freedoms, possibly before 9/11 even happened. I want to get to the bottom of it, and I'd love to see AT&T's upper management fry for it, but first, information has to be wrested from their clutches.
You're advocating not letting that info be drug into the light. I say p*** off. |
|
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T Southwest
| reply to Surfinusa
Actually I agree pretty much with your thoughts. Although I'm a little confused by the "life and death decisions" thing.
The forums here seem to be really quite reasonable. And not a lot of "banning" drama. And there's a huge amount of good technical content here.
I'd prefer the news stories to be a bit more objective and balanced. But it's not my site. It is what it is. I'll quit complaining about the news stories. I've said my piece. |
|
Surfinusa
Premium
join:2001-02-08
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas :said by Karl Bode : quote:
.
Oh man! Bitter much? I guess my attempts to point out where you are reporting biased stories are falling on deaf ears. I guess I'll not bother. Looks like this site is not a place to go for actual news. Well, it's still great for technical stuff... In all actuality BBR site allows people of all kinds to make a noise unlike news reports were you listen and others do the talking.
BBR is a very tolerant site.
The fact BBR has put up with my thoughts show it.
And no not everyone agrees with each other but over all you can respond and defend whom ever you want and talk about what ever you want.
BBR gives users the ability to share there thoughts.
And there is proof because this is a heated topic no moderation has taken place. Yet those that are opposed to liability for actions taken and decisions made by the Bells in favor of the Government seem to have special terms for those who believe the Bells and Government should be held accountable for breaking laws in this case and the Government for not following there own set of laws they created.
Out of fairness let us say BBR is a fair site.
You don't have to agree with the news it reports but BBR doesn't make up news it recieves it from outside sources.
If you think the sources are bias that's your opinion.
Its like a NOSE everyone has one.
You don't have to get up in everyone's face with your nose and point it out but you can exercise your right to.
If that makes any sense.
Being around here since 2001 I feel this is a nice sight like people you meet in person not everyone is nice but you get over it not everyone agrees with you but that's the fact of life.
No one is wrong no one is right when it comes to an opinion.
When it comes down to life and death decisions this is not the place to discuss it. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to JakCrow
said by JakCrow :The majority of Americans are against telco immunity. IMO polls don't mean a great deal. There was a time when a majority of Americans believed all guns should be banned. Didn't matter if it was practical or Constitutional.
I wonder if the majority of Americans have a clue what this immunity is about? 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) grants immunity merely if the AG certifies that a warrant isn't necessary. U.S.C. 2702(a)(3) & (c) was amended in 2006 to reduce "reasonable belief" of "imminent danger" to merely "good faith belief" of "danger" (not imminent).
It seems to me like the proposed immunity is just to short-circuit the process under which already codified immunities would be upheld, challenged in courts of appeals, etc., for years.
If the public understood this, I suspect they could care less. It doesn't sound the same in that context compared to "immunity" (as if they don't already have it).
I think the only thing this is about is avoiding the telcos divulging the details of what they were told in order to form "good faith belief" of "danger". And, to avoid the years of litigation as the lawsuits are sent to appeals, etc.
Mark |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :said by firephoto :Oh look, the dslr community is a similar makeup to the people in the USA. Not even close. The majority of Americans are against telco immunity. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy :It's not about "agreeing" ... Whoa. You're the one who said Bush isn't doing the right thing. Congress isn't, etc. Here's what you do: Get a lot of people who agree with you and change government. Elect new people. Change the campaign finance laws. Amend the Constitution. Call a Convention.
Making the telcos a whipping boy (in *civil* court) when all they did was follow the President's directive is as much a charade of justice as you accuse Bush & Co.
Mark |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to amigo_boy
It's not about "agreeing".. it's about applying the law correctly.
If I get a parking ticket and it says "6:05pm", parking is only enforced until 6pm, and a judge tells me to pay the fine, I don't have to agree with him. I go above his head because there is clear mis-application of the law on his part. I don't care if he agrees or even if everyone in the city told me I was wrong. In the end, I will come out the winner because the law is on my side.
Bush, however, spent time stacking those offices, agencies, and courts with people that would pay him favors and be friendly to his choices - many who have ignored the law themselves doing so.
The problem is that the legal system is under attack by all politicians. You DO realize the courts are supposed to remain neutral from party affiliation, right? There is a reason.. and you are demonstrating it today.
When congress fails to do their job, one check is the judicial system - however, that system has been stacked and is corrupt at this time.
And, to answer your question, and unless you are totally blind, the majority of the nation disagrees with your views right now. Democrats are energized 2 to 1 over the republicans at this point. The people are speaking loud and clear.
Bush made a promise that he would unite this country. I have to say, he didn't lie.. we just assumed he'd unite the country as policy in his administration.. rather, he pissed the nation (world) off so much that the county HAS united.. and they all agree.. the liar needs to go.. and so do all of his friends.
Take a really good look at his past.. the people he appointed and where they come from.. you may be enlightened.
While you are right in getting many people to change the people in the system - that's happening.. what you are 10000% wrong on is that saying things are "right" as long as people agree.. people have been siding with Bush for years, while doing so, they overlooked their true duty.. to uphold the Constitution of the United States. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy :I think you're seeing life with Rose Colored glasses there. Could be. But, the solution to fix all the corruption which you say exists is to get a lot of people to agree with you, change government, the laws, the Constitution. Even call a convention to rewrite the Constitution. Making telcos the whipping boy is just more of the same thing you complain about.
Of course, the other alternative is that the system isn't as broken as you suggest. It could just be that those who don't get what they want, when they want, blame it on "broken government" instead of just the reality of a system that's always been imperfect, and always will be. In other words, sour grapes.
The notion of immunity isn't far fetched. 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) grants immunity simply if the Attorney General tells the requestee that no warrant is required.
Mark |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
1 edit | reply to MyDogHsFleas
I hate to embarrass you,.. actually I don't, but even people on your own side who used to have Bush sitting centered on their shoulders (figure that one out) even agree that Bush has been dis-honoring the office.
Laws are CLEARLY broken.. scholars that know FAR more than you disagree with you and state the system is clearly not working at this time and change is needed.
You are entitled to your opinion all you want.. and we are entitled to point out how wrong you are.
Popular belief doesn't make something "right"... the law does. I'll follow people that spend their entire life devoted to the study of our foundation over someone like you any day.
The sad thing is that it doesn't take long to figure out all the things that this administration has done in violation of the law. The only time, however, you will see what was wrong is when ... well, you won't. Never mind.
While others are self what-ever freedom fighters, I guess that makes your type an apologist or excuse machine? |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by Karl Bode : Again I think you confuse a broken and corrupt system of Justice with vindication and/or moral authority. Get back to us in a decade or so once the bright lamp of history has a chance to burn off the rhetoric of fear. They've already demonstrated the ends justify the means. At first we went to war in Afganistan because that's where the Taliban was holding out.
Next, we wake up in Iraq becuase "Sadaam is a threat to America"..
Next, he has weapons of mass destruction.
Next, he's harboring the Taliban.
Next, he's busted and knowingly ignored information that should have changed his mind..
Finally, we went to Iraq to be seen as liberators and rebuild a democracy.
I can certainly see how the self-styled freedom fighters have already demonstrated that they see the ends justifying the means.
By the way.. what exactly is the "self-styled freedom fighter?" Would that be the person that goes against the current administrations popular belief, not going along with what the majority of popular believe?
In that case, when the democrats take over office this election season, would that turn the tables and make the republicans the new self-styled freedom fighters?
This line of thinking is annoying, to say the least. If someone is on the other side, let's throw some nasty label on them. Just like the Republicans have the "conservative movement" while the gays have "an agenda" and somehow "agenda" is supposed to be 1) different, 2) bad? Just like when former President Clinton speaks, the Republicans will say "why doesn't he just go away, he's not even in office any more" yet those very Republicans will spend all day long listening to people like Newt Gingrich or when not listening to him, they're practically trying to contact Regan from beyond the grave.
Please.. spare us all the negative "other side" name throwing. It's nothing but political BS. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to amigo_boy
Mark,
Check and balance systems are only as strong as the integrity of the people in control of the system. Why don't you look at all the chess moves that Bush played when he took office. Why don't you look at all the people who are providing the checks and balances, see who they are as people, how they got there, and where their loyalty is.
Next, come back and tell us why the cleaning lady was going to be a Supreme Court Justice.
VZ is a democracy, right? However, the idiot in charge was stacking the deck to give him all he wanted.. only, he was point blank about what he was doing. Bush is taking efforts to blow smoke up his followers butt's telling them to wave the American Flag, putting those cute patriotic names on things like "homeland" security, "Patriot" act, the "Protect America" act.. meanwhile, he's leading people to follow him down a dangerous path, misleading people at every turn. (Sound liek the anti-christ yet?)
The check and balance system is all but present at this time in this country. Too many people in government are benefiting from the trough of the public which is one of the signs of the fall of a society.
Just because they "didn't find cause" for impeachment or even a non-binding resolution doesn't mean a thing. You think that the pubs are going to act on their own leader they hold so dearly? You think that the Democrats who just took office were going to make waves? Both parties are fractured at the moment and what you witnessed in the making of political maneuvering in order to save face for themselves at the expense of not only the American people, but the American legal system.
Kind of a funny example, but if you had ever saw the movie Legally Blond 2, there was one very good saying in there.. While Congresswoman Rudd was making moves because of a political supporter, she killed her own sponsored bill. The congresswoman said "what good am I if I am not in office".. the reply was "what good are you doing if you're not being honest and standing up for what YOU believe in"..?
The people in congress do what ever it takes to stay in congress. They feel they need to stay in congress to get their job done.. but all they do is spend time staying in congress while never actually doing their job.
This entire puppet show they put on over impeachment was a joke. The man is guilty as sin and yet people are protecting him.. and at this point, it's for the good of the country. (Think President Ford)
I think you're seeing life with Rose Colored glasses there. |
|
