amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to woody7
Re: Dem contributing trial lawyers & election politics holdup
said by woody7  :They tapped calls emanating from this country without a warrant. They had a chance to go to fisa court even after, ... Aren't you mixing your arguments? FISA covers foreign intelligence gathering (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act). Why would they go to FISA for wiretapping that you acknowledge didn't involve foreign communications?
USC 2511(2)(f) separates itself from foriegn intelligence. It's 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) that grants immunity if the Attorney General certifies a warrant is not required. We know it was certified from Comey's testimony (»thinkprogress.org/comey-testimony/).
Mark |
|
rahvin112
join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT
| reply to amigo_boy
The current administration is unwilling to pursue criminal charges, beyond the obvious reasons such prosecution would likely implicate many of the politicians currently in charge.
Given the discord and contempt with which most Americans hold the president and this administration lets allows the guard to change then discuss the bill rationally. Once the deck isn't stacked with the same criminals that asked the companies to violate the law we'll have a much fairer verdict on whether the telecom companies should be charged for violations of the privacy policies they themselves prepared and agreed to abide by.
But those criminal charges alone don't negate the civil penalties for the actions. No civil immunity should be granted to any company, especially one that willingly broke the law and their own policies.
Hopefully in 8 short months real criminal charges will be filed against everyone that was involved including those in the administration who were involved, hopefully right to the top of the current administration. Willful disregard of the law should be punished severely. I'd personally like to see the soon to be former president charged, convicted and jailed for his egregious breaking of laws, authorization of subordinates (who don't deserve protection because they were ordered to do it) to break the law and his other illegal behavior while president. Just because current politics protect him, shouldn't give him immunity for his actions. We apparently need a precedent that sitting presidents are accountable for their actions after leaving office as the founders intended. |
|
rahvin112
join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT | reply to TKJunkMail
They tapped ALL phone calls. Domestic and foreign. |
|
rahvin112
join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT
| reply to MrMoody
Most of the UK "Empire" of colonialism was lost after the invention of the machine gun. In fact there were numerous massacres by the British of Indian nationals using machine guns and troops before India obtained independence. Not only that but the Indian independence seekers never armed themselves.
Beyond that there have been numerous african governments that have changed hands, often with the use of heavy weapons involved on both sides. Somalia and Afgahnistan both are prime examples where the revolution involved very heavy weaponry.
And beyond even that you could call much of the change South and Central America has experienced the last 10 years revolutionary in nature, and not a shot was fired in most cases. |
|
KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs:
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Speakeasy
| reply to TKJunkMail
I appreciate TK actually being upfront about being elitist. I actually find that kinda funny; that's a term that Republicans love to push in attempts to bash the political rivals. Kinda sad how well it works - those damn welfare-loving Democrats are elitist while those corporate-profit-above-everything Republicans are more like us 'regular Joes'.
Hrumph.
I think it's pretty plain that those who support the fascist tactics of this administration are either:
1) living in deep fear
or
2) profiting from the government's actions and policies
or perhaps a combination of both.
I really don't see how anyone in their right mind who truly loves what this country stands for can support this destructive administration. Of course, that assumes that 'what this country stands for' is understood to be life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...not selfishness, greed, and materialism.
KM |
|
Telecom Pro
@rr.com
| reply to woody7
said by woody7 :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. This is a bald-faced lie.
Klein testified that they fed CALL DATA to the government, not that they wiretapped anyone.
Call data (pin register) has never required a warrant. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
1 edit | reply to rahvin112
said by rahvin112 :Hopefully in 8 short months real criminal charges will be filed against everyone that was involved including those in the administration who were involved, hopefully right to the top of the current administration. I'm ok with that. I just haven't liked the idea of using civil suits as a proxy for criminal prosecution (which is what many opponents of wiretapping have openly admitted it to be). Eight months isn't long.
But, I doubt there will be criminal prosecutions because the law permits the wiretapping. See my previous posts in this topic. There may be a reason to charge the President or Attorney General for abusing these laws. But, it appears the telcos were within the law.
BTW: The immunity deal only protects against civil suits for activities between 9/11/2001 to early 1/17/2007. It won't interfere with your hoped-for criminal prosecutions. And, it could be repealed.
Mark |
|
Telecom Pro
@rr.com
| reply to rahvin112
said by rahvin112 :They tapped ALL phone calls. Domestic and foreign. And what evidence do you have to support this outrageous assertion? |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to Telecom Pro
said by Telecom Pro :
Klein testified that they fed CALL DATA to the government, not that they wiretapped anyone.
Call data (pin register) has never required a warrant.
Do you have a reference to where Klein testified to this? (BTW: I thought normal warrant requirements were necessary for a telco to release call records, from/to information?).
One thing that's interesting to me is that USC 2511(2)(a)(ii) makes it illegal for a telco employee to publicize the existence of wiretapping.
"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 .... Any such disclosure, shall render such person liable for the civil damages provided for in section 2520. "
Mark |
|
rahvin112
join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT
| reply to Corydon
The loss of the Communists is claimed as a great victory by the Republicans. At the same time they seem to have turned around and adopted everything about the Red Communists that they used to be opposed to.
1. National ID (witholding federal money from states that refuse to comply with national mandate)
2. Warrantless Searches.
3. Disregard for the courts.
4. Disregard for the Jury.
5. Use of torture.
6. Elimination of free debate (not allowing press that portrays the white house poorly to ask questions or be included in press events.
7. Elimination of free speech (protest zones)
8. Loyalty is more important than experience (Brown,etc)
10."Papers Please" (Fingerprints, retinal scans, DNA and databases of not only foreigners but every US citizen, and then tieing that information in with commercial databases)
11. A no-fly list with close to 1 million people on it. No ability to challenge your name being on the list, no accountability for the list and no criteria for being included on the list.
12. An FBI that has ADMITTED breaking the law (using national security letters thousands of times with no justification, no follow up and no accountability.)
13. Immunity from prosecution and civil action for friends of the administration.
14. Use of the state secrets privilege to eliminate the release of information that could be politically or criminally damaging to the administration. (a page right out of Nixon's book)
Real republicans died with the Neo-con's took over. It used to be about reducing government expense and of reducing our international commitment and involvement and protecting USA economic interests.
It's a disgrace, IMO the whole party should be thrown out. |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
1 edit | reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :said by lg75 : thinks is perfectly legal for someone to go into someone else's house, steal their wallet and get away with it... Good point you make there. 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? Why are you using an excuse whipped up by the talking heads? |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| reply to woody7
said by woody7 :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. Correct. Bush and friends even admitted FISA applied to the wiretapping that was done. Saying they didn't have time to get warrants is a child's excuse. |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by Telecom Pro :
Klein testified that they fed CALL DATA to the government, not that they wiretapped anyone.
Call data (pin register) has never required a warrant.
Do you have a reference to where Klein testified to this? (BTW: I thought normal warrant requirements were necessary for a telco to release call records, from/to information?). One thing that's interesting to me is that USC 2511(2)(a)(ii) makes it illegal for a telco employee to publicize the existence of wiretapping. "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 .... Any such disclosure, shall render such person liable for the civil damages provided for in section 2520. "
Mark And the idea that a person should keep quiet when said surveillance is illegal goes against everything this country stands for. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by JakCrow :And the idea that a person should keep quiet when said surveillance is illegal goes against everything this country stands for. If activity adhered to the law it didn't go against everything this country stands for. The law did. And the law's allowing data gathering been on the books for a very long time. I.e., there's been adequate time to have it repealed. Choosing to violate the law just because it's easier is the same thing the Administration is accused of doing.
Mark |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :If they broke the law, charge them criminally. That would require a federal prosecutor to bring charges. Sadly, the Bush administration purged all the ones who wouldn't kowtow to the political purposes of the higher-ups.
Or did you conveniently forget about that?
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by wierdo :Or did you conveniently forget about that? You have congressional hearings available to you. And elections to replace those you believe are preventing justice. Just 8 months.
Mark |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| said by amigo_boy :said by wierdo :Or did you conveniently forget about that? You have congressional hearings available to you. And elections to replace those you believe are preventing justice. Just 8 months. What a nice tactic. Change the subject when you don't like someone's point. Today, and since 2004, it has not been possible to federally prosecute a crime that the political machine does not want to see prosecuted.
Besides, the ECPA and other wiretap laws specifically create a civil cause of action, so I don't know where you get off saying that these companies should only find themselves in criminal court. Are you just carrying water for the administration?
I hope you're getting paid well for your obfuscatory services.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by wierdo :What a nice tactic. Change the subject when you don't like someone's point. Today, and since 2004, it has not been possible to federally prosecute a crime that the political machine does not want to see prosecuted. Sorry. I didn't realize I changed the topic. You complained that it's impossible for criminal charges to be brought due to the current administration. I responded that you have political options such as 1) pressure Congress to hold hearings (and call for prosecutions depending on the results). And, 2) use the election process to replace those who you believe aren't pursuing justice.
said by wierdo :Besides, the ECPA and other wiretap laws specifically create a civil cause of action, so I don't know where you get off saying that these companies should only find themselves in criminal court. I was just replying to the incessant statements that "a crime was committed" or "they broke the law." If those statements are true, the place to prove it is in a criminal court, not civil. Many proponents of these civil suits have openly stated that it's being done because it's easier than seeking criminal charges. (Which sounds a lot like what the corner-cutting which the Administration is accused of.).
Mark |
|
INT0CABLE
BANNED
Premium
join:2007-10-22
Bronx, NY | reply to amigo_boy
then weirdo its right this is not republican and i should have known better because ron paul doesnt approve of this blown in your face violation of civil liberties.
it's fascist (and corporatist) crap. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
3 edits | reply to TKJunkMail
That whole spiel is nothing more then politically grandstanding-- as is your post.... A Blog quote from Republican whip Roy Blunt, ya, you know that's the truth, and not just election year politics. 
Yeah, that's what it's all about, siding with terrorists so lawyers can sue. Uh huh. Everyone who is against Telco immunity is some terrorist lover or trial lawyer. The Republican Whip can say all sorts of political propaganda, and you'll just swallow it hook, line, and sinker, eh? Wonder if he bothers to check how many of his esteemed Republicans are lawyers.... maybe that's why he tries to narrow the focus to only civil lawsuit trial lawyers... he doesn't want the crap he's shoveling to splash around on his fellow Congresscritters...
NO To quashing the investigations. No to immunity!
The lawsuits should proceed. You may want us to throw all civil liberties under the wheels of the administration, but I don't. |
|
