 woody7Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Re: Dem contributing trial lawyers & election politics holdup
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 |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| 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 |
|
|
|
| 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. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| 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 |
|
 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. |
|
Reviews:
·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 |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | said by amigo_boy: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 Since the activities were illegal, a person has the duty to come forward, and there are provisions for such whistle blowers. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by JakCrow:Since the activities were illegal, a person has the duty to come forward, and there are provisions for such whistle blowers. It's yet to be proven they were illegal. It's hard to believe they were illegal when no criminal charges have been brought.
And, when 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) and U.S.C. 2702(a)(3) & (c) both provide a legal basis for the activities. We know the former may have applied because Comey admitted in testimony that the AG certified wiretapping.
The former was expanded in 2006 to better accommodate the government's claimed needs (not reduce it). When a law is expanded to cover an activity, it tends to prove that the activity wasn't illegal (in spirit). For example, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was illegal according to the letter of the law. The 13th amendment made it legal. His action was still illegal by the letter of the law, but most people would say it was legal by the spirit of the law (the larger context of how it was made legal later).
Same thing with Roosevelt violating the Neutrality Act by trading ships for bases. It was made legal a few months later by the Lend-Lease Act.
Mark |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | You've already been taken apart 5 times for using the "no criminal charges" excuse. |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
 ·Cox HSI
 ·T-Mobile US
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:For example, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was illegal according to the letter of the law. The 13th amendment made it legal. His action was still illegal by the letter of the law, but most people would say it was legal by the spirit of the law (the larger context of how it was made legal later). Yet again, you find yourself on the wrong side of an analogy. The emancipation proclamation did not apply to US territory, it only applied to the states in rebellion. The commander in chief, especially back then when there were few laws to govern the use of that authority, could proclaim whatever he pleased to be the law of the land in foreign territory. At the time, the rebellious states were foreign territory.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by wierdo: The emancipation proclamation did not apply to US territory, it only applied to the states in rebellion. The commander in chief, especially back then when there were few laws to govern the use of that authority, could proclaim whatever he pleased to be the law of the land in foreign territory. At the time, the rebellious states were foreign territory. The problem is that Lincoln insisted the states had no right to leave the union, that it was a domestic dispute, not a war against a foreign territory.
This is partly why Lincoln opposed some of his generals who, before the proclamation, refused to return runaway slaves to their owners. The generals justified this by calling slaves spoils of war. Lincoln didn't believe the states had withdrawn from the union and their rights. It's also why Lincoln originally favored compensation to slave states who voluntarily freed their slaves.
Mark |
|
