| The bottom line is VERY SIMPLE. AT&T and the others KNEW what they were doing was illegal. End of case. Do the crime, pay the fine. No if's, and, or but's about it. The LAWYERS at AT&T KNEW it was illegal, but the executives of said companies chose to ignore their advice. Guess what, the SHAREHOLDERS are the ones who are going to pay, not the public. I hope to hell AT&T is forced to pay out at least 40 billion in fines. That's the ONLY way the other megacorps are going to finally realize that breaking the law, WHEN THEY KNOW ABOUT IT AHEAD OF TIME, is going to cost them. So guess what shareholders, all your investments are going to be worthless. Oh well, you knew you were dealing with an evil company, but your greed overrode your common sense. Now you suffer for that same greed.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| said by karlmarx:AT&T and the others KNEW what they were doing was illegal. End of case. Do the crime, pay the fine. Not necessarily. 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).
Mark |
|
Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to karlmarx
Sorry but you're basically making all that up. You can type in caps and be extremely assertive and repeat yourself a lot, but it is just pulled out of nowhere. I could go on like AmigoBoy did and actually cite the real status of this case but I don't think it'd do any good. You're just fantasizing things to match your view of this situation.
To say that not only is it illegal, but lawyers at AT&T told them it was illegal and they went ahead anyway? What are you, an AT&T board member? There is no possible way you could know this. |
|
|
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:Not necessarily. 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). Mark yep, that's the certification part, an alternate to a legal court order. The kicker about this is that it has to be a piece of paper signed by the AG. I've never seen in any report where the govt or Justice Department has indicated that the AG did indeed sign this piece of paper. It seems like producing this certification, properly signed by the AG would make this whole mess go away.
My guess as to why this hasn't happened is because there is no certification, just like there is no court order. I suspect ole Abu Gonzales did not want his name to appear on a potentially illegal justification that could come back and bite him on the @ss.
the game plan seems to be to kill the lawsuits thru either the state secrets claim (already shot down) or retroactive immunity. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by nasadude: I've never seen in any report where the govt or Justice Department has indicated that the AG did indeed sign this piece of paper. I heard once on the news that the AG certified it. But, that might just be teevee. I agree with you that producing it would make it all go away. But, when you're threatened with legal action you tend not to try your case outside of court (unless you're the EFF trying to drum up membership and contributions). You hold onto everything and wait until you're required to make your case. No reason to make the other side's job easier.
Or, as you said, perhaps, in retrospect, the certification looks like it shouldn't have been made and the administration is trying to make it go away by giving immunity through a different mechanism (avoiding everything it would lead to, challenging Gonzalez in court I suppose).
OTOH: What about 2702? That doesn't require certification. And, it was amended in 2006 to water it down, making immunity almost guaranteed. All AT&T would have to do is disclose what the government told them to lead to a "good faith belief" that "danger" existed. They may be trying not to do that due to the sensitive nature of the information.
Mark |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
one can certainly infer guilt by everything these companies are doing to prevent the day of reckoning.
FISA is pretty clear about telcos needing a court order or certification to provide private information to the govt. In addition, the old ATT helped write the FISA act to ensure the law would be perfectly clear on this matter.
To say the telcos did not know the law or thought there was confusion about the law requires a suspension of belief.
Why are the telcos (and Bush admin) pushing so hard for immunity? Two reasons come to mind:
1) they didn't have the proper authorizations, as the FISA law requires,
2) they knew it was illegal
if neither of these is true, they are wasting shareholders money lobbying for immunity. maybe they can be sued for that. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by nasadude:FISA is pretty clear about telcos needing a court order or certification to provide private information to the govt. Maybe I missed something, but how do you know they don't have certification?
Also, what happened to U.S.C. 2702(a)(3) & (c) which was amended in 2006 to reduce "reasonable belief" of "imminent danger" to merely "good faith belief" of "danger" (not imminent).
Mark |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude:Why are the telcos (and Bush admin) pushing so hard for immunity? Two reasons come to mind: 1) they didn't have the proper authorizations, as the FISA law requires, 2) they knew it was illegal bzzzt. sorry. This has nothing to do with "illegal". The correct answer is:
3) not having immunity will put them in class action lawsuit hell, and, more importantly, kill any chance of cooperation in the future, because they know the lawsuits are coming.
In effect, the ACLU/EFF/etc. are trying to kill the wiretapping operation by "death from a thousand class action lawsuit cuts." |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by MyDogHsFleas:In effect, the ACLU/EFF/etc. are trying to kill the wiretapping operation by "death from a thousand class action lawsuit cuts." A reasonable person would also question whether a group like EFF has a self-serving interest to gain membership and contributions. They may be portraying this in such a way as to appeal to a mindset that is inclined to join and contribute money.
I saw this with the pro- and anti-gun groups in the '90s. Their best advertising came from each other. The NRA would print the most vitriolic (and least represenative of those who support "reasonable gun control) pieces from Sarah Brady's Handgun Control Inc. HCI would do the same thing using NRA literature ("jack-booted thugs.").
It was all about raising money when the vast majority of Americans believe they have a right to arms, but support "reasonable" controls. The moderate middle is always overshadowed by the extremes. And, if you follow the money, the extremes are usually led by those who have something more to gain than just implementing an extreme agenda.
Mark |
|
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:Maybe I missed something, but how do you know they don't have certification? Because there is no evidence that they did have certification or that there was cause for a "good faith belief" of "danger". |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by factchecker :said by amigo_boy:Maybe I missed something, but how do you know they don't have certification? Because there is no evidence that they did have certification or that there was cause for a "good faith belief" of "danger". They're not required to provide you that evidence. Therefore, nasadude's enumerated list of possibilities should include the possibility either of those two laws apply, and AT&T is not required to defend its case in public just to satisfy those who've already concluded that whatever happened is wrong.
I.e., if AT&T divulged the details now, it wouldn't make self-styled freedom fighters happy. They would just complain that it's not good enough.
Mark |
|
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:said by karlmarx:AT&T and the others KNEW what they were doing was illegal. End of case. Do the crime, pay the fine. Not necessarily. 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). Mark Thx for pointing that out, Mark, but if you've been following this thing all along, then you also know that if the telcos didn't do anything illegal, then why is it that their favorite tools are pushing so hard for retroactive immunity in Congre$$?
The above-referenced U.S.C. you just cited is more than enough to protect any noble/patriotic rationales for illegally wiretapping American citizens en masse. But of course, we all know that such drivel is complete & utter horseshit. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by SilverSurfer1: then you also know that if the telcos didn't do anything illegal, then why is it that their favorite tools are pushing so hard for retroactive immunity in Congre$$? Isn't this a variation of the "if you have nothing to hide, why do you care if the government takes a peek?"
said by SilverSurfer1:The above-referenced U.S.C. you just cited is more than enough to protect any noble/patriotic rationales for illegally wiretapping American citizens en masse. But of course, we all know that such drivel is complete & utter horseshit. How can it be "illegal" if it is meets the criteria of U.S.C.?
Could this mindset have anything to do with AT&T's desire to escape years of civil court, with EFF feeding this mindset (chumming for donations)?
Mark |
|
| reply to amigo_boy
Are you actually from the US? Where in the hell do you get the idea they aren't required to provide the evidence? What the hell do you think laws are? Laws are simply the hammer we use to punish those who are wrongdoers. If, and this is a big IF, If they "don't need to produce the evidence", then what the hell point is the law? Which is exactly WHY they are pushing so hard for retroactive immunity. Because AT THE TIME, they were breaking the law. IF they WERE NOT breaking the law, then they just produce the evidence, and everything goes away. I don't buy the story that 'national security' is at risk, that's just a stall tactic to try and hide their wrongdoings. I sure as hell don't believe the EXECUTIVE branch has the right to suppress evidence in a court of law, just by issuing an 'order' that the law doesn't apply. That's why the US government is broken into THREE parts. No one part should be able to do what the bush regime is doing by running roughshod over the constitution.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! |
|
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:said by SilverSurfer1: then you also know that if the telcos didn't do anything illegal, then why is it that their favorite tools are pushing so hard for retroactive immunity in Congre$$? Isn't this a variation of the "if you have nothing to hide, why do you care if the government takes a peek?" That could a viable argument provided that there existed -in advance- (as there does currently exist for the telcos) a law the gave protection to the accused in the event they were found not to have done anything illegal. I am currently not aware of any such pre-existing law for any other entitities than for the telcos in the wiretapping case. You can check the latest revision to the FISA law for more info.
said by SilverSurfer1:] The above-referenced U.S.C. you just cited is more than enough to protect any noble/patriotic rationales for illegally wiretapping American citizens en masse. But of course, we all know that such drivel is complete & utter horseshit. said by amigo_boy:How can it be "illegal" if it is meets the criteria of U.S.C.? Could this mindset have anything to do with AT&T's desire to escape years of civil court, with EFF feeding this mindset (chumming for donations)? I'm not sure what you're getting at here - are you saying that the reason the EFF wants this matter front & center is so that they can milk clients for extra attorney fees? FYI: The EFF is a non-profit. They don't charge out the ass the way a private law firm would. The EFF has nothing to gain on the profit margin side except the upholding of our Constitution and rule of law. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx:If they "don't need to produce the evidence", then what the hell point is the law? I was replying to what seemed like an expectation that AT&T would divulge information publicly when not necessary. There seems to be a mindset among self-styled freedom fighters that "they already admitted to breaking the law" when it's only been admitted there was no warrant. The law provides for warrantless surveillance.
When this is pointed out, self-styled freedom fighters insist AT&T must be guilty otherwise they would disclose how those two laws already apply to them. Not necessarily. Being the defendant in a lawsuit, the smartest thing to do is shut up and say nothing. The second smartest thing to do is find a way out of it (settling, immunity, etc.).
said by karlmarx:Which is exactly WHY they are pushing so hard for retroactive immunity. Because AT THE TIME, they were breaking the law. Isn't this a lot like "if you have nothing to hide, why do you object to someone taking a peek at your communications?" You wouldn't be impressed with that would you?
Don't you think they may have reasons to seek immunity simply to avoid the angry mob using preconceived rhetoric like you're doing?
Mark |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | amazing that you keep missing the point:
AT&T isn't divulging any evidence or information clearing them from responsibility because they don't and never had any evidence from the government. if they did, they wouldn't be spending millions lobbying the government for retroactive immunity. repeat.
the negative publicity alone from them breaking the law will stay with them for a long time... |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to SilverSurfer1
said by SilverSurfer1:That could a viable argument provided that there existed -in advance- (as there does currently exist for the telcos) a law the gave protection to the accused in the event they were found not to have done anything illegal. I don't understand what you're saying. Why would the telcos need a law in advance to protect them from not doing anything illegal?
said by SilverSurfer1:I'm not sure what you're getting at here - are you saying that the reason the EFF wants this matter front & center is so that they can milk clients for extra attorney fees? EFF makes money from memberships and contributions. Being a "non profit" doesn't mean anything. Anyone can obtain that status. It simply means additional profits are paid to employees in the form of higher salaries, etc. Like United Way (which was not only non-profit, but charitable) paying the staff huge salaries, making overhead 70% of contributions.
You guys who are so eager to criticize corporations and a "rigged" government sure seem trusting when it comes to an organization with an agenda.
Mark |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to morbo
said by morbo:AT&T isn't divulging any evidence or information clearing them from responsibility because they don't and never had any evidence from the government. if they did, they wouldn't be spending millions lobbying the government for retroactive immunity. repeat. I'll ask again: Why is your reasoning different than "if you have nothing to hide, why do you care if government peeks at your communications?"
You don't know what their motivation is. It could simply be to avoid years of appeals, etc. You know that anything they divulge won't satisfy the people who've already concluded *nothing* could make this legal.
Mark |
|
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:They're not required to provide you that evidence. They are not required to by law... However, to prove that they did nothing wrong, they need to provide it. Currently, as it stands, the facts do not exonerate ATT of wrong doing. |
|
