 swhx7Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to littlemeow
Re: Conyers is my hero Posted by Scuttlebutt on Slashdot today:
quote:
As impressive as the House vote itself was, more impressive still was the floor debate which preceded it. ... One Democrat after the next -- of all stripes -- delivered impassioned, defiant speeches in defense of the rule of law, oversight on presidential eavesdropping, and safeguards on government spying. They swatted away the GOP's fear-mongering claims with the dismissive contempt such tactics deserve, rejecting the principle that has predominated political debate in this country since 9/11: that the threat of the Terrorists means we must live under the rule of an omnipotent President and a dismantled constitutional framework.
|
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by swhx7:in defense of the rule of law, Why are those impassioned with "defense of the rule of law" ignoring 18 USC 2511 (2)(a)(ii)? That law holds Klein to the same standard the government is being held to.
"No provider of wire or electronic communication service, officer, employee, or agent thereof, or landlord, custodian, or other specified person shall disclose the existence of any interception or surveillance or the device used to accomplish the interception or surveillance with respect to which the person has been furnished a court order or certification under this chapter, except as may otherwise be required by legal process and then only after prior notification to the Attorney General or to the principal prosecuting attorney of a State or any political subdivision of a State, as may be appropriate. Any such disclosure, shall render such person liable for the civil damages provided for in section 2520. " Mark |
|
28655376Premium
join:2008-01-11
Seattle, WA | Ah, you're not reading the whole thing.
device used to accomplish the interception or surveillance with respect to which the person has been furnished a court order or certification under this chapter Now, we know the AT&T surveillance room wasn't a result of a court order, so there goes that part of the argument.
Now, point us to the certification under the chapter which this program was made.
Oh wait, it wasn't. This was a secret deal between the government and AT&T. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by 28655376:Now, point us to the certification under the chapter which this program was made. Comey's testimony makes it clear it was certified prior to Ashcroft's surgery. »thinkprogress.org/comey-testimony/
Mark |
|
|
|
28655376Premium
join:2008-01-11
Seattle, WA | I find it interesting that the testimony you link to is about the Deputy AG saying he didn't feel he could re-certify the program.
There's also:
with respect to which the person has been furnished It can easily be argued that he was unaware of such an order or certification due to the great lengths AT&T went to keep it hidden.
I think the fact he hasn't been charged with anything or fined anything is pretty compelling. If the government that doesn't bat an eye at locking up enemy combatants without trial isn't going after him, perhaps they don't have a case. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by 28655376:I think the fact he hasn't been charged with anything or fined anything is pretty compelling. It may be as simple as the government wanting to keep a low profile and avoid explaining their surveillance.
Mark |
|
