how-to block ads
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to JakCrow
Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you?
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
| 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. | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| 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 | |
|
