MrMoody
Carbon Based Lifeform
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | reply to boognish
Re: Dem contributing trial lawyers & election politics holdup
Name a successful revolution since machine guns were invented. Outside assistance from another power doesn't count.
--
The public is a poor business manager. |
|
lg75
join:2003-01-31
Bronx, NY
 ·Optimum Online
1 edit | reply to TKJunkMail
Now you're the one missing the point. It's illegal for someone to come into someone else's house and steal. Just like it's illegal for the cops to come into your house WITHOUT a WARRANT. That's why we have laws in this country. Nowhere in the law does it say that AT&T is immune from it. |
|
Corydon
Cultivant son jardin
Premium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to TKJunkMail
Anybody who considers himself a conservative and a believer in the Constitution ought to be against this.
The telecoms and the NSA have absolutely zero right to vacuum up all the data that crosses their networks and search it. I don't care if they're going after terrorists, kiddie porn, or any other bugaboo that the MSM dreams up. If you want to search my data (my property), you need to have a warrant.
The irony is, twenty years ago all the Republicans were saying things like "Better Dead Than Red". I guess they're all in favor of authoritarians as long as they're supposedly protecting us from a bunch of raving mullahs living in a cave.
Me, I'll stick with John Paul Jones. And it looks like I'll have to increase my contributions to the EFF again.
Why are House Republicans against liberty?
--
My opinions are my own. No-one else would want them! |
|
Dan888
join:2007-08-21
Wilmington, DE
| reply to TKJunkMail
I will just use this quote from my last message
"We do not even know what they need immunity for yet, if anything, as the cases are still ongoing and it is worth knowing what they did before we just give them immunity."
If it was out of necessity and ONLY for this purpose, the courts should reveal this. There is no reason though to give immunity though until after we find out what they were/are doing. |
|
PhoenixDown
-- Wants FIOS
Premium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
clubs: 
1 edit | reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail  And what did AT&T steal from you by tapping foreign phone calls traversing the US or where 1 end terminates in a foreign country?
And according to the RIAA, the illegal interception of a digital transmission would be piracy. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
2 edits | reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :Well, I live in the real world and not in the fantasy land you apparently think we should live in. You are ignoring the "Golden Rule" - those who have the gold rule. That rule has controlled the world for thousands of years and nothing I have ever seen in governance around the world is going to change it. Or in more current context... those that have the Oil, rule. Which country 'owns' us right now? Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
·Qwest.net
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :said by Dan888 :Do you feel it is unnecessary to determine if the companies violated the constitution? We do not even know what they need immunity for yet, if anything, as the cases are still ongoing and it is worth knowing what they did before we just give them immunity. The companies followed requests of the government to defend the nation. No different than our soldiers in Iraq do in following the orders of the government, even though some(not me) consider our actions their criminal. Should we jail all our returning soldiers for obeying the orders of the government that sent them there? Because you are saying that telecom employees should be penalized for following government requests for info. First off, this is all a straw man, as the actual FISA legislation is still in effect which allows the government to gather whatever information is necessary, and can even gather for 72 hours prior to requesting a warrant. Having said that, Soldiers in Iraq is VERY different than violating domestic laws. However, if Soldiers (Sailors, Airmen, Marines) violate the law, they should be investigated and punished. That is the LAW. It's not a request. I know that, during my 20 years in the US Navy if I had violated any laws, I would have been investigated and punished. If telcos violated the LAW, they should be investigated and punished. A request from a governmental entity does not NECESSARILY constitute a lawful request. Even a Soldier on the battlefield has to be able to determine if an unlawful order has been given. Just because Hitler ordered murders did not let his minions off the hook, they were still tried and punished. And if a US combatant is ordered to kill an unarmed, non-combatant, that would be an example of an unlawful order (they teach us this stuff, starting in boot camp).
I would also point out that one other company apparently COULD figure out the legality, or in this case, the illegality of the request, and believe me, Joe Naccio was no Democrat. |
|
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25 | reply to Corydon
Actually, Republicans are all in favor of authortiarianism, as long as they are the authoritarians. |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
 ·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| reply to INT0CABLE
said by INT0CABLE :get outta here with your republican crap. that bill should be buried It's not Republican crap, it's fascist (and corporatist) crap.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
1 edit | reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :said by Dan888 :Do you feel it is unnecessary to determine if the companies violated the constitution? We do not even know what they need immunity for yet, if anything, as the cases are still ongoing and it is worth knowing what they did before we just give them immunity. The companies followed requests of the government to defend the nation. No different than our soldiers in Iraq do in following the orders of the government, even though some(not me) consider our actions their criminal. Should we jail all our returning soldiers for obeying the orders of the government that sent them there? Because you are saying that telecom employees should be penalized for following government requests for info. And if I was a government official, and I told you to go in and sieze money from a bank to defend this nation w/o a court order, would you do it ?
Soldiers if the field are trained to obey their leaders w/o question.
Telecoms are trained to ??? take your money and run a business.
Also, as noted above, civilian law is different than military law.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :And what did AT&T steal from you by tapping foreign phone calls traversing the US or where 1 end terminates in a foreign country? In the physical world (and in the virtual world, since around 1986) breaking and entering is illegal on its face. So is a common carrier or other electronic service disclosing your private communications without a warrant.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word. |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :Should we jail all our returning soldiers for obeying the orders of the government that sent them there? Because you are saying that telecom employees should be penalized for following government requests for info. The Abu Ghraib scapegoats certainly got that treatment. I'd prefer we jail the people who ordered the illegal acts, personally.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word. |
|
james
join:2001-02-26
antarctica | reply to TKJunkMail
Not to invoke Godwin's Law, but... |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to wierdo
said by wierdo :[ It's not Republican crap, it's fascist (and corporatist) crap. second that. real republicans actually believe in the rule of law. Bruce Fein, a very conservative republican (but also constitutional scholar) is appalled at the Bush administration contempt for the law and the constitution |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :I think you miss the point. I am on the side of those who rule - not on the side of the "great unwashed" masses. don't tell me you're .. gasp.. elitist! |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :The companies followed requests of the government to defend the nation. No different than our soldiers in Iraq do in following the orders of the government, even though some(not me) consider our actions their criminal. Should we jail all our returning soldiers for obeying the orders of the government that sent them there? Because you are saying that telecom employees should be penalized for following government requests for info. so that means when the president asks you to crush the testicles of the 5 year old son of an American citizen suspected of being a terrorist with critical information,but won't talk, you jump up, salute and go get the hammer? |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to INT0CABLE
said by INT0CABLE :get outta here with your republican crap. that bill should be buried I'm not a Republican. I agree with TK.
Mark |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to boognish
said by boognish :If they didn't do anything wrong then they shouldn't have anything to worry about. It's always funny how those who reject "if you've done nothing wrong, why do you oppose greater eavesdropping powers" are the first ones to use that same logic against the telcos.
Mark |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to rit56
said by rit56 : they broke the law and should be punished, If they broke the law, charge them criminally. Civil court isn't where criminal prosecutions occur. Most people opposed to wiretapping usually admit that they don't want to do the work involved with prosecuting law breakers (impeachment of the President, congressional hearings, criminal prosecutions, etc.). What they're really saying is that they're ok with taking the same shortcuts they accuse the government of taking.
And, for what it's worth, the laws cover the telcos' actions. 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) does the same thing if a telco has reasonable belief of imminent danger. This was amended in 2006 to reduce "reasonable belief" of "imminent danger" to merely "good faith belief" of "danger" (not imminent). This tends to show the legislative branch felt the laws should be relaxed -- not strengthened.
Mark |
|
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to TKJunkMail
They tapped calls emanating from this country without a warrant. This has never been about what you have stated, and that is illegal.What part of that don't you understand? They had a chance to go to fisa court even after, and they chose not too. I could, and most people would agree that what goes on outside this country is ok. The telcos are spinless and acquiesced, and that is their mistake. While they (both parties) are posturing, everything is going to hell in a hand basket.Gas,food, rice, etc.etc. I'm so afraid that without this immunity, that I am afraid to leave the house. Not.
--
BlooMe |
|
