JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | reply to amigo_boy
Re: So what
»www.hstoday.us/index.php?option=···emid=149 |
|
JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
West Chester, PA
 ·Verizon FIOS
1 edit | reply to Dogfather
said by Dogfather  :So if they didn't get immunity what happens. A few customers who weren't damaged get a worthless coupon. Bloodsucking scumbag Sen Edwards types get millions. Customer rates go up because corporations don't pay this, customers ultimately do. If the telco broke the law, put those who signed off on it in jail. Otherwise STFU unless you can PROVE some individual was personally damaged by their actions. So what?! It's a big deal if they don't get it. First off, the telcos agreed to help out because they were assured that what they were doing is legal, and it was for purposes of national security. They were told that what they were doing was above-board.
Second, their service was totally voluntary. What happens the next time some administration goes to any company/industry for this type of assistance in the future? Well, if you're like any company, you probably say 'no'. Why would you open yourself up to ligitation like that? If this litigation is allowed to go forward, what kind of credibility would future administrations have when they go to a company and say 'help us out... don't worry it's totally legal'? If someone who VOTED to grant immunity now turns around, and for political expediency, now makes this kind of statement, why would any company ever take the government's word on this type of stuff in the future?
I find McCain's statement totally baffling here. He KNOWS this will put a chill on future requests for help from the Federal Government. THAT'S why this is a big deal.
Edit - I just reread your original post. I saw a question mark after the 'so what' that wasn't there. I thought you were making the point that this isn't a big deal. My apologies. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to JakCrow
Contrary to your assertion, I see no mention of 2511. Do you have an explanation?
Mark |
|
vicorjh
Premium
join:2007-06-24
Arlington, MA
| reply to JPL
I think that would be a good thing in regards to putting a chill on future requests.
In my humble opinion, the government should show that their actions are legal and above board if there are any question to the legality of an action. In conflicting instances, the government must legislate laws by and for the people through the regular legislative channels.
For expediency, there are mechanisms already that allow for checks and balances to remain in place while, at the same time, allowing for expedited action. In the interim, legislation may be started to make such actions temporary or permanent legal.
Now that things are "out in the open", the people's voices regarding this matter are being heard by the legislative bodies. This seems correct to me. |
|
roc5955
Premium
join:2005-11-26
Rosendale, NY
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Dogfather
said by Dogfather :There are no damages if there was no damage. Civil penalties for what? No one was damaged. So then it comes to whether or not there were criminal acts. If there were, instead of giving millions to bloodsucking scum lawyers, those who signed off on it should go to jail. So nobody should be held financially responsible for breaching your implied privacy within the confines of the teleco? No, you, as a customer, whose records were intended to be kept private, but were given to the government, under false pretenses were damaged. Unless your right to privacy is worth nothing to you. If it is, than perhaps you should move to a country where that is the norm, like China or Cuba.
--
"Understanding is a three-edged sword." |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
| No one was damaged. There is nothing to be financially responsible for.
Civil and criminal penalties to be paid to the state for a violation of the law is a different matter than filling the pockets of a bunch of bloodsucking Sokolove ambulance chasing asswipes.
If you get bent over privacy so much, you better not deal with ANY bank, ANY telco, ANY credit reporting agency, ANY company as the vast majority sell far more important data than who you called. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
2 edits | said by Dogfather :No one was damaged. I'm not in favor of the EFF et. al. civil suits because I don't believe it's about damages, it's about using civil courts to accomplish what they can't through normal (criminal) channels.
But, your assertion seems excessive. IIRC, shortly after 9/11 Muslim men were required to go to immigration offices, be interviewed by the FBI, etc. Many Muslims were deported over technical violations of immigration law (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). I'm not particularly fond of Islam (backwards rednecks who get far more "diversity sensitivity" due to western norms than they deserve). But, if I were one of those affected Muslim, I'd feel I'd been damaged (assuming telcos were used during that process of weeding out the bad apples).
Mark |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
 ·T-Mobile US
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to lesopp
said by lesopp :Your assumption is that they are guilty, but what if the courts ultimately decide otherwise? They wouldn't be pushing so strenuously for an immunity bill if they didn't fear liability. They've already admitted that they participated because the White House asked them to (contradicting the law). If they don't get immunity, it's guaranteed that they'll face $billions in law suits.
Bad publicity and dirty laundery won't see the light of day when national security is invoked. It's already been invoked, yet fortunately our government is almost as inefficient at keeping anything secret as they are at wasting our tax money.
The telcos already got bad coverage last year with the small amount of evidence that was broadcast. Without immunity they can't stop the torrent of crap that they unleashed.
What if the president on his last day in office grants a pardon to all the telcos invloved. He can't, hence the immunity request. If the president could pardon an entire company, they wouldn't be wasting their money lobbying and and trying to save their asses. They'd just stick to the president, sit this out, and wait for the pardon.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| reply to amigo_boy
Actually, you're correct. However, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) is irrelevant, and as already stated, yet another excuse that people, such as yourself, have tried to trot out while running interference for the administration. If this gave Bush and the AG the right to authorize warrantless wiretapping, then there would have been no reason for Gonzolas to make the claim that HJR114 gave Bush all the authorization needed to wiretap without a warrant. Of course, that also ignores all the other excuses used by both the admin and people, such as yourself, while scrambling to cover Bush's ass and try and justify violations of both the FISA law and the Constitution. Of course, the hypocrisy of it all is that if it weren't for the fact the president has an R next to his name, people, such as yourself, would be calling for the president's head on a pole. |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
| reply to amigo_boy
If some Muslim (or anyone else) broke an immigration law, I don't care if it's a technical violation. If the violation calls for deportation, they should be deported. There should be no exceptions to the law.
The problem is the gov't lets illegals get away with it for so long, it's de facto amnesty. All these exceptions is how we end up with 20 million illegals crushing our infrastructure. People wait in line for years and years and follow all the rules while jackasses are allow to just cross the border or over stay their Visas and nothing happens to them.
IMO, anyone violating any immigration law is a bad apple and should be deported. That is what would happen to an American if say I was illegally working in Mexico. |
|
ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| reply to Dogfather
said by Dogfather :Problem is the bucks the bloodsucking lawyers steal comes at the expense of the customers who were supposedly wronged. Corporations never pay for this crap...they just pass it on. We would look forward to a Bloodsucking Lawyer Payoff Recovery Fee. More valid, IMHO, than the so-called Regulatory Fee we pay already.
To cops, all lawyers are blood-sucking scum. To the rest of us, they are the defenders of freedom. |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| reply to Dogfather
said by Dogfather :If some Muslim (or anyone else) broke an immigration law, I don't care if it's a technical violation. If the violation calls for deportation, they should be deported. There should be no exceptions to the law. The problem is the gov't lets illegals get away with it for so long, it's de facto amnesty. All these exceptions is how we end up with 20 million illegals crushing our infrastructure. People wait in line for years and years and follow all the rules while jackasses are allow to just cross the border or over stay their Visas and nothing happens to them. IMO, anyone violating any immigration law is a bad apple and should be deported. That is what would happen to an American if say I was illegally working in Mexico. 12 million |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to Dogfather
said by Dogfather :All these exceptions is how we end up with 20 million illegals crushing our infrastructure. OMG. You don't understand the immigration law. What I was referring to had nothing to do with 20 mil illegals (who are here largely due to reasons unrelated to immigration law). Immigration law can be extremely subjective for those who wait in line and try to follow the rules. And they don't have to prove that they're applying the law consistently (the reason I added "wink, wink, nudge, nudge.").
There appeared to lots of Muslims who had the law reapplied to them for the purpose of getting rid of them. Not Germans or Bolivians. Just Muslims.
So, it seemed a bit over the top to me that nobody suffered damages. If I were Muslim I'd feel damaged. (And, believe me, I'm not in love with Muslims.).
Mark |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to JakCrow
said by JakCrow :If [2511] gave Bush and the AG the right to authorize warrantless wiretapping, then there would have been no reason for Gonzolas to make the claim that HJR114 gave Bush all the authorization needed to wiretap without a warrant. It's not amazing that the administration would use Joint Resolution 114 (authorizing the President to wage war on terror) as the source of their power *under existing law*. There's nothing in 2511 (or anywhere else, AFAIK) that defines when the AG can certify a warrant isn't necessary.
Mark |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to Dogfather
It's not the money.
It's being able to use the Courts so that full details of what occurred come out to the light of day.
If they get immunity, we'll never know what went on and how far it went. |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
1 edit | reply to JakCrow
20 million.
Bush an his Amnesty cronies put the number at 12 million because they want to give amnesty to all of them. Illegals don't respond to census questionaires.
Independent studies by firms like Bear-Sterns »www.bearstearns.com/bscportal/pd···ound.pdf put the number at 20 million and that was a few years ago. It's only gone up since then. |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
1 edit | reply to ross
Defenders of freedom? Braaaaahhhhh ha ha ha ha!
James Sokolove and John Edwards...the poster boys for why we need tort reform are defending freedom.
Too funny. These scumbag ambulance chasing extortionists are a waste of skin. |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | reply to KrK
Let that come out in a criminal trial. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
| said by Dogfather :Let that come out in a criminal trial. If they are given immunity there never will be a criminal trial. I've debated that argument before with people. Since the Government would have to file charges to bring a criminal case, no criminal trial will occur.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
3 edits | My mistake then. From what I read, this "immunity" was only protecting the telcos from civil liability and that it didn't grant actual immunity from criminal prosecution. |
|
