amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to KrK
Re: So what
said by KrK  :If they are given immunity there never will be a criminal trial. The proposed immunity is only against civil liability, not criminal:
»rpc.senate.gov/_files/L43S2248FI···07ML.pdf
Mark |
|
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
| reply to Dogfather
said by Dogfather :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. No, it only provides immunity from civil trials. They could be prosecuted by the Government... However.... since the Government is complicient in the wiretapping, they aren't going to prosecute themselves if you see what I am saying. You won't see the Justice Department investigating and embarrassing the administration for example.
--
"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!) |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :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 But neither is a good excuse. Bush broke the law by authorizing warrantless wiretapping, and all the excuses team players like you try to continue to use don't change the fact that he broke the law and violated the Constitution. I realize people, such as yourself, think that the team is more important than the good of the country, but still, that's not a good reason. |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| reply to Dogfather
said by Dogfather :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. Sorry. The bearstern document says "may be as high as...". It does not state with any positive determination that it is so. You're simply using your own hysteria to fill in the numbers. |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| reply to Dogfather
said by Dogfather :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. Can you give us a list of all the "ambulance chasing" cases that John Edwards "chased"? Thanks in advance. |
|
roc5955
Premium
join:2005-11-26
Rosendale, NY
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Dogfather
said by Dogfather :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. Believe me when I say that if I didn't have to deal with some of these companies, I wouldn't. As it is, I only deal with my local credit union for banking, and they have assured me that they do not sell their information. As a matter of fact, it's one of their policies.
As far as the others are concerned, I do not have control over them, but if I could, I would sue them for every time I had to eat a cold dinner because one of their lackeys made a cold call.
--
"Understanding is a three-edged sword." |
|
