Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to factchecker
Re: The bottom line is VERY SIMPLE. said by factchecker :
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.
I agree. I would only add that they don't prove them guilty either (regardless of the rantings of self-styled freedom fighters).
Personally, I'm inclined to believe AT&T acted lawfully based upon either (or both) of the laws I've already posted. It's hard to imagine they would act outside the law. Either Gonzalez gave them certification, or they were told "we're watching these people, and uncovered xxxx" (leading to "good faith belief").
Mark |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
1 edit | reply to amigo_boy
AT&T is motivated by money, pure and simple. if they had any evidence that "the gov'erment told us to break the law--it ok" they would have made it public immediately.
not just to save millions of dollars in lobbying costs and the potential billions in damages from breaking the law, but also the enduring smear their illegal cooperation has on the AT&T name and brand. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by morbo:AT&T is motivated by money, pure and simple. if they had any evidence that "the gov'erment told us to break the law--it ok" they would have made it public immediately. not just to save millions of dollars in lobbying costs and the potential billions in damages from breaking the law, but also the enduring smear their illegal cooperation has on the AT&T name and brand. A couple of points.
1. According to the laws I posted, if the apply to AT&T, then it wouldn't have been "the government told us to break the law." It would have been legal.
This is why I believe the telcos have a legitimate interest seeking immunity. There are too many people like yourself who can't fathom that it may be legal. Nothing AT&T could divulge would satisfy those people. It would just be years in appeals, with EFF using every morsel to stoke the flames of membership and contribution.
2. You're applying a cost analysis that you're not willing to apply to yourself.
You would categorically reject this:
"If you have nothing to hide, why do you care if the government peeks at your communications? Why spend so much time and energy that could be spent on more rewarding activities unless you have something to hide?"
But, if AT&T seeks immunity to avoid years of appeals (because the EFF crowd will never be satisfied with anything AT&T provides), it's "obvious sign of their guilt."
I don't suppose you see the problem here?
Mark |
|
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy: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? A question best left to the wizards who authored the latest FISA revision.
said by amigo_boy: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. I resent your implication - Personally, I trust my own judgment, and, in this particular matter, the EFF is the only thing standing between the rule of law and the Constitution and the ability to buy off a Senator to write laws to keep you immune from your wrongdoing.
Good grief, man, pull your head out of your portfolio for a just a second.  |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
2 edits | said by SilverSurfer1  A question best left to the wizards who authored the latest FISA revision.
You'll still have to explain to me what you mean. How were the two laws I provided revised and not applicable to AT&T?
Mark |
|
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:I agree. I would only add that they don't prove them guilty either (regardless of the rantings of self-styled freedom fighters). The facts, as they stand, suggest possible illegal activities... Wholesale and unwarranted funneling of communications to the government and no explicit authorization or certification of those activities by the government. In other words, as it stands, it appears that they acted outside the law. Until authorization is presented, it is the only logical conslusion.
Personally, I'm inclined to believe AT&T acted lawfully based upon either (or both) of the laws I've already posted. It's hard to imagine they would act outside the law. Hard to imagine ? Based on what evidence ? Run a search of court cases and it becomes clear that corporations regularly break the law. |
|
|
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by factchecker :
as it stands, it appears that they acted outside the law. Until authorization is presented, it is the only logical conslusion. Or, we could say that until criminal charges are brought, they're presumed innocent. (Something I remember from grade school.).
Also, it's not just certification. They can instead make a claim that they had a "good faith" belief that danger existed based upon what the government disclosed to them. That's a test anyone could pass.
That's why it's hard to believe they could have gotten into this without justification. I can understand why they don't want to talk about it. Especially when those making the most noise about it won't be happy with whatever is said. It could bounce around in appeals for decades.
Mark |
|
Zerny
join:2007-05-04
Fort Gratiot, MI
1 edit | reply to karlmarx
Karl,
Murder is illegal also, but when the goverment decides they need it done, no one gets in trouble for it.
Heck even some private citizens go over and profit from it. |
|
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:said by factchecker :
as it stands, it appears that they acted outside the law. Until authorization is presented, it is the only logical conslusion. Or, we could say that until criminal charges are brought, they're presumed innocent. (Something I remember from grade school.). Actual innocence and appearance of guilt are very different. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Also, it's not just certification. They can instead make a claim that they had a "good faith" belief that danger existed based upon what the government disclosed to them. That's a test anyone could pass. Without proof to back such a claim, the claim is worthless, regardless of who makes it. Guilty men cry "I'm innocent" all of the time. An actual signed order or letter from DoJ is required. |
|
| said by factchecker :
An actual signed order or letter from DoJ is required.
What do you do with U.S.C. 2702(a)(3) & (c) which only requires "reasonable belief"?
Mark |
|
| *sigh*.. Look at it this way. As all the 'conservatives' are so fond of saying, if they have nothing to hide, then why should they care? That's EXACTLY what they DID to the American Public! They VIOLATED the American Public's trust.
If they have nothing to hide, then just show the evidence. You can't have a trial without evidence, THAT is what a trial IS. It's the presentation of EVIDENCE. If there IS evidence they didn't break the law, just present it, poof, problem solved. How come THEY get to SAY 'If you've done nothing wrong, why do people care', yet they are not subject to the same twisted philosophy themselves? That is hypocrisy at a level unheard of ever before. THAT is why they must pay. "Do as I say, not as I DO" is not a legal excuse.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! |
|
morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | reply to amigo_boy
1. the laws you posted are not applicable in this situation.
2. your argument does not make sense.
"If you have nothing to hide" line equates to stripping me of my guaranteed right to privacy. No one has a right to do that.
AT&T seems to claim, through agents like you--not publically, to have been in the right legally by breaking federal law and funneling raw information to the NSA. One of the reasons being that the "government asked us to do it". Instead of providing evidence of their innocence to refute the lawsuit, they are attempting to lobby their immunity by tacking it onto other terrorist related funding. Anyone accused of committing a crime usually will provide evidence of their innocence, IF it exists.
But again, your point makes no sense. |
|
| reply to karlmarx
Actually this is really the key.
Corporate liability immunity for executives ends when they and the corporation violate criminal law. Corporations manage to violate criminal laws all the time but the wiretapping (especially since it started in Jan-Feb 2001, months *pre-9-11*) is so profoundly blatant and unconstitutionally treasonous that it probably will trigger cessation of corporate liability protection normally shielding all board members, the senior and junior executive staff and probably even director-level managers.
The immunity law isn't even mostly about shielding AT&T from bankrupting fines, it's about these folks avoiding criminal charges and slam-dunk convictions for multiple federal (state also?) felonies that easily have an effective life-sentence for everyone at the top. Their personal assets might also be at stake - even those they've tried to shield with incorporation individually - their personal criminal acts probably would nullify personal S-corp/LLC liability shielding also.
We can only hope. They can keep the fines if systematic criminal convictions were obtained as far I'm concerned. Very much a long shot also - money buys justice in the US. |
|
