how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
653 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 boognishPremium
join:2001-09-26
Baton Rouge, LA
kudos:6 | where are the people.... That always use that quote if they haven't done anything wrong then they shouldn't have anything to hide?
This is one time I sort of agree with that quote. If they didn't break any laws or do anything wrong then they wouldn't need immunity. It is not like a large company under so many regulations and with so many lawyers didn't know the laws and consequences of their actions before hand.
--
don't get 2 close 2 my fantasy | |
|   bentand IngaPremium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO
 ·Comcast
| Re: where are the people.... said by boognish:That always use that quote if they haven't done anything wrong then they shouldn't have anything to hide? This is one time I sort of agree with that quote. If they didn't break any laws or do anything wrong then they wouldn't need immunity. It is not like a large company under so many regulations and with so many lawyers didn't know the laws and consequences of their actions before hand. I think you hit the nail on the head right there. The irony of that turn of phrase is the best thing I've seen all day.
"Conservatives warned that the bill would be "dead on arrival." They insist that if the phone companies don't have legal immunity, they won't risk cooperating with the intelligence community (when illegal searches are requested), hampering information gathering efforts."
This little gem was the runner up. If you knew you couldn't be prosecuted, what might you attempt that you otherwise might not?
--
»www.lp.org/issues/family-budget.shtml
"That government is best which governs least" - Thoreau | |
| | Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| Re: where are the people.... said by bent:If you knew you couldn't be prosecuted, what might you attempt that you otherwise might not? But, they won't know they can't be prosecuted. The proposed immunity doesn't apply to future actions. Only Sept. 11, 2001 until Jan 17, 2007. Telcos would still have to be sure their actions are prudent in the face of circumstances. A principle which has guided this nation for over 200 years.
Can you imagine President Lincoln issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, and folks charged with carrying it out saying "no, I might be sued in civil court because your proclamation is illegal." Or, Roosevelt's transfer of ships to England? Those involved in the handoff refusing to because trial lawyers might sue them for all their worth?
Mark | |
| | | bentand IngaPremium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: where are the people.... If you've gotten away with something once, chances are you won't be afraid to try it again.
Likening wholesale warrantless wiretapping to the Emancipation Proclamation is absurd, the analogy falls on its face in so many ways.
--
»www.lp.org/issues/family-budget.shtml
"That government is best which governs least" - Thoreau | |
| | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: where are the people.... said by bent:If you've gotten away with something once, chances are you won't be afraid to try it again. The world didn't fall apart after Lincoln and Roosevelt broke the law, and folks followed the President's instructions.
The fact of the matter is that we don't know the answer to your statement because we've never had to grant immunity before, because we never had activist groups willing to sue those who followed the President when they couldn't get satisfaction through normal channels (impeachment and criminal proceedings against government officials).
Your supposition is equally as valid as those who say "if we let people be sued by trial lawyers for following government instructions, nobody will ever do the right thing when asked to."
The irony to me is that we've increasingly become a nation of uninvolved people. And now we're telling people not to exercise their best judgment (for fear of being *civilly* sued). Can you imagine the people involved with transferring ships to Britain (when Roosevelt broke the law) saying "I better call in sick. I might get sued." Is that the kind of America we want?
Mark | |
| | | | | | | Re: where are the people.... You have argued on this topic in the past that the rule of law should be followed. The new bill proposed clearly allows that possibility, that if a company was properly served documentation authorizing their activities, they will be allowed to present that evidence. That evidence will not be available to the plaintiffs, eliminating the concerns about leaking secure information. What is your specific argument with this proposal? | |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: where are the people.... said by mikenolan7:The newly proposed bill clearly allows ... What is your specific argument with this proposal? Good question. I don't know. Off the top of my head:
On the one hand it sounds like an improvement. On the other hand, Congress is making law for one specific case to overrule the judge's determination that state secrets don't apply (because the government already discussed many things in public, such as Sunday morning teevee shows).
To me this is a red herring. It's not whether states secrets apply or not. It's that, if the government abused 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) (certification a warrant isn't necessary) that's not the telcos' liability. Therefore, I don't believe this belongs in civil court (behind closed doors or not).
Also, I'm not sure how you got the impression I'm a "rule of law" guy. I've said that I think copyright infringement can be a valid form of civil disobedience (although I doubt most infringers are thinking at that level). I've said the constitution is a living document. That circumstances can dictate the "spirit" of the law, not the "letter" of the law.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: where are the people.... The telcos have argued that they received documentation instructing them to comply with the requests, but they have been prevented by state secrets laws from presenting the documents to defend themselves. This bill would enable them to present that documentation to a judge, and if they in fact have it, the civil cases will be dropped. It seems like a very reasonable solution to this problem to me, and if the telcos are telling the truth they won't suffer any massive legal fees to prove it.
Whether or not anyone abused their privileges when generating those documents is a different question. If you want to find that out, you must first determine if the documents exist. That is not in question at this point, since no version of the FISA Bill that I am aware of offers immunity to anyone in that position. | |
| | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: where are the people.... said by mikenolan7:The telcos have argued that they received documentation instructing them to comply with the requests, Comey testified that it was certified. That doesn't seem to be in dispute.
»thinkprogress.org/comey-testimony/
said by mikenolan7:Whether or not anyone abused their privileges when generating those documents is a different question. If you want to find that out, you must first determine if the documents exist. Normally that would be obtained through impeachment charges against the President, or criminal charges against government officials. Not a civil suit against a private entity.
said by mikenolan7:That is not in question at this point, since no version of the FISA Bill that I am aware of offers immunity to anyone in that position. Why do people ignore 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) which grants immunity merely if the AG certifies that a warrant isn't necessary. And 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
| said by mikenolan7:The telcos have argued that they received documentation instructing them to comply with the requests, but they have been prevented by state secrets laws from presenting the documents to defend themselves. This bill would enable them to present that documentation to a judge, and if they in fact have it, the civil cases will be dropped. It seems like a very reasonable solution to this problem to me, and if the telcos are telling the truth they won't suffer any massive legal fees to prove it. I'm sorry to be blunt, but you are living in dreamland. You've bought into the fairy tale some Democrats are spinning.
First, it is quite disingenuous of them to bring up this bill, because it has zero chance of being passed. This is simply to whack the Bush administration one more time and put this back on the front pages one more time, to shove aside all the negative news about Obama vs. Hillary, and Spitzer's situation.
Second, even if they were serious about enacting this, you've got to realize that class action civil suits are simply a war of attrition where the plaintiffs stretch things out as long as possible because they want to hit that magic point where settling makes more sense to the defendants than continuing to fight. Massive legal fees are simply the ante, it's a given that those costs are incurred.
And in this case it's not even about the money for the plaintiffs, so it'll be hard for the telcos to buy their way out of it. The plaintiffs are on some kind of moral crusade to punish the Bush administration and the telcos are simply a stand-in for that. | |
|
| | | | bentand IngaPremium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO Reviews:
·Comcast
1 edit | said by amigo_boy:The irony to me is that we've increasingly become a nation of uninvolved people. And now we're telling people not to exercise their best judgment (for fear of being *civilly* sued). Can you imagine the people involved with transferring ships to Britain (when Roosevelt broke the law) saying "I better call in sick. I might get sued." Is that the kind of America we want? Mark If this administration had previously shown any integrity, I might not be so set on breaking the balls of the telcos and, by extension, the current executive branch.
The kind of America I want is one of checks and balances, and one where those checks and balances are followed to the extreme, even when it might be painful to do so. Law enforcement can walk into any courtroom in the country, say the word "terrorist," and get a warrant for whatever they want. Why didn't that happen in this case?
Your Emancipation Proclamation analogy is actually closer to the mark than your Roosevelt reference, because southerners could argue that it violated their right to be secure in their property. We fought a nasty war over that one, remember?
--
»www.lp.org/issues/family-budget.shtml
"That government is best which governs least" - Thoreau | |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: where are the people.... said by bent:The kind of America I want is one of checks and balances, We do have checks and balances. Everything from impeachment, special prosecutors, replacing the President every 4 years, or Congress every 2. The judicial system seemed to work the way opponents wanted it to (the judge didn't dismiss the civil suit, and he did dismiss the government's claim of state secrets). The Senate held hearings, and Comey's information became public. The AT&T whistle blower hasn't died from mysterious circumstances.
To echo "pnh," how about giving this country some credit? It's not *that* bad. After the election work to improve the laws. Call for appointment of a special prosecutor (if immunity passes it doesn't cover criminal charges).
said by bent:Your Emancipation Proclamation analogy is actually closer to the mark than your Roosevelt reference, because southerners could argue that it violated their right to be secure in their property. We fought a nasty war over that one, remember? I agree. It's easy to look back from today and think it was a no-brainer and "should have been legal by anyone's estimation." At that time it must've looked as seriously unconstitutional as when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus.
I wouldn't say President Bush's leadership on wiretapping was as noble or visionary as Lincoln freeing slaves. But, I wouldn't say it was as obviously illegal either. The law provides for warrantless searches, and the AG certified it. There was some period, (up to a year between Ashcroft's surgery and Gonzalez's appointment?) where the President authorized it without Ashcroft's approval. But, the law provides for warrantless wiretapping even without certification. And, that law was expanded in 2006 to make it more applicable (similar to later legislation making Lincoln's actions legal).
Mark | |
|
| |
|
