how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
668 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | This news item actually makes sense, sort of. quote:
While highly unlikely given AT&T's lobbying & legal prowess, these kind of numbers make it a little more clear why AT&T and Verizon have been spending millions in DC over the past few years in order to get legal immunity for their involvement in these programs.
Well, DUH. This is exactly what I've been saying in other news article comments as this story unfolds. This is not about "illegal wiretapping" or "breaking the law". This is about a company trying to stay out of class action lawsuit hell.
My comment is: why shouldn't AT&T spend money on lobbying this issue? First, it's perfectly legal. Second, it's manifestly clear from a business point of view that it's in their interest to avoid being liable for billions or trillions of dollars in damages. If you owned stock in AT&T and they did not try to avoid these liabilities, you'd probably sue them for malfeasance.
quote:
Congress is currently on vacation, but when they return the House will be tasked with deciding whether or not to fight, or support, these companies' request for immunity as they move to renew FISA.
Jon, you've left out some important points.
(a) Congress left without renewing FISA at all! Your story completely glosses over that little detail.
Instead the Democrats decided to ram through procedurally loaded deals against the Justice Department over their hiring and firing practices. They've prioritized election-year partisan manuvering above working on national security.
(b) The immunity deal is a small part of FISA. You make it sound like that's the biggest issue. It's not. | |
 woody7Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | The way that I understand it is that "fisa" is still functional, and nothing has changed. The guvment can still do as usual, get their wiretap before or after the fact. What is the big deal that they didn't extend it? What has changed? No matter how you slice and dice it, if you broke the law, you broke the law. Fisa is stacked in the guvments favor, with getting a warrant after the fact, I know to some that is a bizzar quirk, in having to get one at all, but come on they had up to 72 hours after the fact, and that probably doesn't really matter, what matters is that they (being the guvment) knew they probably were treading on thin ice, and that is why they didn't go to fisa.The administration doesn't like checks and balances for that matter. How long are we going to be in a war mode? I hope some day this $hit stops and we can learn to cope with the rest of the world, and really accomplish some meaningful things, and stop the petty bickering that has been around for decades. End of rant Peace 
--
BlooMe | |
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by woody7:The way that I understand it is that "fisa" is still functional, and nothing has changed. The guvment can still do as usual, get their wiretap before or after the fact. What is the big deal that they didn't extend it? What has changed? It is true that existing taps do not need to be disconnected. But there have been major changes.
What has changed is that (a) new targets that require a new court order are now on hold, thus endangering national security; and (b) even a renewal of an existing order is likely to be refused by the telecom companies, since they are almost guaranteed to have an ACLU/EFF type lawsuit against it, not to mention a shareholder lawsuit for putting the company at risk of these giant class action lawsuits.
I think the Democrats are playing a dangerous game that could come back to bite them. Obama has made "stopping warrantless wiretaps" part of his platform. Obviously Pelosi is supporting this by procedurally manuvering to kill the FISA/PAA renewal. When the general election campaign starts, McCain will bring this up. | |
| I think McCain will be keeping mum on the issue of telco immunity.
»www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/po···.html?hp | |
 KoolMoeAw ManPremium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD | reply to MyDogHsFleas
Oh, phooey.
The FISA bill should NOT be ratified because it contains telco immunity provisions.
Bush and co. whine that Democrats are playing with our national security. But he also said he won't sign a FISA bill that does not include telco immunity.
If FISA is so critical to our national security, then Bush should be willing to sign the bill even if it does not contain any telco immunity provisions.
BUSH is just as guilty as playing politics with this as any Democrat may be...but even More Guilty, IMO, as we could have a renewed FISA bill Right Now if he'd sign one without telco immunity...
The mere fact that he is not willing to do so directly indicates he is forgoing our national security in favor of corporate interests.
THAT is a dangerous game!
KM | | |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | reply to mikenolan7
I'm puzzled by your response.
It's quite obvious McCain will make national security a key part of his campaign. He has already signaled this in his victory speech after the last primary. It's not so much that he will single out telco immunity, but he will clearly include that in his view of what the FISA should be. He already voted for the bill including the immunity piece in the Senate, so he's on record. (So is Obama by the way, he voted to strip the immunity piece from the bill.)
What are you trying to say by linking to the NYT story? That McCain won't dare support AT&T because Obama will come back at him with this very old news? I think you're dreaming, to be frank about it. McCain has already gone on the offensive against the NYT calling the story a smear and a hit piece. Do you really think voters care about "the Keating 5" which happened almost 20 years ago and was handled by the Senate at the time? Or lame attempts to link him sexually with a subordinate? I don't think Obama will go there.
UPDATE: I did not realize the woman in question was a telcom lobbyist, not a "subordinate". My bad -- I see now a little more why the story's relevant. | |
woody7Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | reply to MyDogHsFleas
If I am not mistaken,all you need for "new" targets is a court order,and why would they be on hold? All you do is go to the court and if it is kosher you get the warrant.If I am not mistaken, you have up to 72 hours after to do so, and that is probably flexible.contrary to the misleading attempts by this administration nothing has really changed. And who is playing a dangerous game? Bush can sign the revised law without telco immunity and visit the immunity later. How does this endanger national security ? Who cares if the telcos get sued? If you think that these lawsuits are trivial and harm the "telecoms" think again. What you are condoning is bad/illegal behavior by a company, and crying to the government for help. You are actually putting "shareholder rights" above citizens rights. I have nothing to hide, but nor do I want someone to spy on me.Peace
--
BlooMe | |
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to KoolMoe
said by KoolMoe:Oh, phooey. The FISA bill should NOT be ratified because it contains telco immunity provisions. Bush and co. whine that Democrats are playing with our national security. But he also said he won't sign a FISA bill that does not include telco immunity. If FISA is so critical to our national security, then Bush should be willing to sign the bill even if it does not contain any telco immunity provisions. BUSH is just as guilty as playing politics with this as any Democrat may be...but even More Guilty, IMO, as we could have a renewed FISA bill Right Now if he'd sign one without telco immunity... The mere fact that he is not willing to do so directly indicates he is forgoing our national security in favor of corporate interests. THAT is a dangerous game! KM I think this hinges on your point of view about the telco immunity.
If you think it has nothing to do with national security, and instead is big-money corrupt politics and Bush doing a favor for AT&T to cover up illegal activity, then yes, I guess the logical conclusion is that Bush is "playing politics".
But from the executive branch's point of view, it has everything to do with national security. Allowing telco trials to go forward would tend to expose secret operations. More importantly, allowing the ACLU/EFF/etc. to sue the telcos every time they get a whiff of something will effectively kill any cooperation the government was getting from the telcos on national security requests. From that point of view, it is actually the other side who is "playing politics" with this issue, trading off scoring points against big business and for the trial attorneys against national security.
You can see that from that point of view, Bush signing a bill without telco immunity is pointless, because they won't get what they need from the telcos after that. In fact, Bush has already pledged to veto any bill that does not include immunity. | |
djeremy
join:2004-07-12
San Francisco, CA | reply to MyDogHsFleas
Actually, I see it the other way. The FISA bill would have passed a long time ago had the president not threatened a veto unless it had retroactive immunity. If he is so concerned about protecting the country, shouldn't he have signed the bill without immunity? | |
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
No, I just think that he will be extra careful to not look like he is doing any favors from here on (especially in the telcomm arena). Won't change his vote (he will have to vote again), I just don't think he'll make it a campaign point. FISA, maybe, telco immunity, no. Telco immunity/liability is what this news item is about. Kind of moot, this will be settled before the conventions, and he's already locked up the Republican nomination.
Telco immunity is not a national security issue, it is a money issue. You don't really believe that if the telcos get sued, that government agencies will be unable to gather intelligence, do you? All they have to do is get a warrant, and they can do that after the fact. From a court that has approved far over 99% of the applications they have received. The telcos are legally obliged to comply with a warrant. Or do you think they will be as willing to break that law, as the one that required them to receive one in the first place? | |
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by mikenolan7:No, I just think that he will be extra careful to not look like he is doing any favors from here on (especially in the telcomm arena). Won't change his vote (he will have to vote again), I just don't think he'll make it a campaign point. FISA, maybe, telco immunity, no. Telco immunity/liability is what this news item is about. Kind of moot, this will be settled before the conventions, and he's already locked up the Republican nomination. I agree with everything above.
Telco immunity is not a national security issue, it is a money issue. You don't really believe that if the telcos get sued, that government agencies will be unable to gather intelligence, do you? .... (snip)
Yeah, this is my point, that this is the key question. I said this in response to another post. If you believe that the wiretap program actually does not help national security, you naturally go to all those other conclusions about it being about money, political payoffs, lobbyists, coverups, etc.
My view is that intelligence gathering is not about on or off, black or white, you have it or you don't. It's a continuum. If you cripple and hamper it, and tie it down with lots of firewalls, rules, signoffs, legal checks and balances, it will be less effective.
The ACLU/EFF/etc. believe it's more important to (a) studiously avoid ever gathering any information that could possibly ever be questioned as to whether it should have been gathered, (b) compartmentalize and protect that information so that it won't be shared with other agencies, and (c) have lawyers and judges overseeing and approving every step of an operation, than to effectively gather intelligence.
The heads of every intelligence department go to Congress and say "If you do these things it will hurt our ability to defend national security. It will take us back to where we were pre-9/11 when we didn't effectively gather and share information." And they seem to assume they are lying or self-serving.
This is why Al Quaeda feels confident that if they dig in for the long run, the USA won't win against them. And they may be right. We may not have the will to be vigilant and defend ourselves over the long haul. | |
KoolMoeAw ManPremium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD | reply to MyDogHsFleas
I see your differing perspectives, but disagree with the division.
FISA allows for the tools our government needs to monitor communications with the telcos as partners, willing or not.
They telcos and this administration should be held accountable for bypassing the FISA court and illegally monitoring interstate communication...results of the likely following lawsuits notwithstanding.
There is no direct correlation. There's no NEED for the FISA bill to include telco immunity, as far as it relates to the federal government needing 'tools' to perform communication monitoring.
So I disagree with your closing comment, "...Bush signing a bill without telco immunity is pointless, because they won't get what they need from the telcos after that."
I agree with your final comment, "In fact, Bush has already pledged to veto any bill that does not include immunity." - of course, as I already stated that in the previous comment...which directly makes him a hypocrite since he's claiming the Democrats not renewing the bill is endangering the country.
KM | |
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by KoolMoe:So I disagree with your closing comment, "...Bush signing a bill without telco immunity is pointless, because they won't get what they need from the telcos after that." You miss my point. My point is that from Bush's point of view, signing a bill without telco immunity is pointless. I'm just trying to point out that there is logical consistency in "the other side's" mindset, it's not just about dirty greedy politics or whatever mudslinging term you want to throw around.
Hopefully it's possible for you to understand a point of view that you do not agree with, and not simply say "they think that way because they're evil, greedy, and corrupt". | |
woody7Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | "Hopefully it's possible for you to understand a point of view that you do not agree with, and not simply say "they think that way because they're evil, greedy, and corrupt".
Thats just it, I do understand their point of view,
But they are "evil,greedy, and corrupt"
--
BlooMe | |
KoolMoeAw ManPremium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD | reply to MyDogHsFleas
I get your point. My counterpoint is Bush's apparent view is warped. That's why I talk about why no telco immunity does not impact the other FISA options. There is nothing about removing telco immunity that negatively impacts the rest of the FISA program.
If Bush thinks - or you think - there is, then I'd like to hear that explanation.
If you believe that the wiretap program actually does not help national security, you naturally go to all those other conclusions about it being about money, political payoffs, lobbyists, coverups, etc. That's not the point, and I think you know it. It's not that the wiretap program 'does not help national security', it's that they went about it illegally. Sure, knowing what every American is saying or emailing at any given point could surely be helpful.
But that doesn't mean they can ignore the legal process.
My view is that intelligence gathering is not about on or off, black or white, you have it or you don't. It's a continuum. If you cripple and hamper it, and tie it down with lots of firewalls, rules, signoffs, legal checks and balances, it will be less effective. Exactly! The existing FISA laws allows flexibility AND legal checks. Removing telco immunity does not mean there is no longer any point to doing wiretaps...as Bush seems to be point-of-viewing...
The stuff about the ACLU/EFF/etc is so silly I won't even get into that response. Suffice to say your true colors really shine there. Such organizations definitely have their bias but they are in no way intent on actually harming our country.
The heads of every intelligence department go to Congress and say... They also said Iraq was an imminent threat and had WMD. I think their collective credibility is a bit suspect.
If AlQuaeda feels any comfort, it's solely due to the way this administration has played into their hands.
KM
--
Don't Lie - Be Kind - Realize your Potential | |
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to djeremy
said by djeremy:Actually, I see it the other way. The FISA bill would have passed a long time ago had the president not threatened a veto unless it had retroactive immunity. If he is so concerned about protecting the country, shouldn't he have signed the bill without immunity? He'll just continue to operate without warrants, right? It worked before FISA amendments, it will work now.
The same proof-by-irony could be directed at self-styled freedom fighters. They could have had better oversight over surveillance (protecting individual freedom) but they let a civil lawsuit stand in the way.
Mark | |
|
