Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
1 edit | reply to expert007
Re: Ya Gotta be Kidding Me said by expert007:There's this thing called "process", not to be mistaken with "process" like that cheese thats in your fridge. Facts just suck sometimes. The law provides for telcos to hand over data to the government with very minimal requirements. 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) permits it merely if the AG certifies that a warrant isn't necessary. U.S.C. 2702(a)(3) & (c) also allows it, and was amended in 2006 to reduce "reasonable belief" of "imminent danger" to merely "good faith belief" of "danger" (not imminent).
We already know from Comey's testimony that AG Ashcroft certified something. »thinkprogress.org/comey-testimony/
And, we already know that Gonzalez (who replaced Ashcroft) felt he could certify it (long article about why FISA permission doesn't apply) »www.usdoj.gov/opa/whitepaperonns···ties.pdf.
That's why most supporters of civil suits openly admit they're just trying to accomplish what they can't through criminal justice. Nothing necessarily wrong with doing that. But, it gets a little tiring to hear assertions about how "it was illegal" or "they broke the law."
Mark |
|
 dnoyeBFerrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI | It was illegal and they did break the law. As soon as it came out, the law was ammended. Do you really think the telcos would be pushing for immunity against nothing!? If it was nothing the telcos would be pusing to speed the case up to the Supreme court where it could rule in their favor.
--
dnoyeB
"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. " Ecclesiastes 9:16
|
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by dnoyeB:It was illegal and they did break the law. As soon as it came out, the law was ammended. Read 2511, it clearly says a warrant isn't necessary if the AG certifies it.
The fact that they amended the law (expanding government powers) goes a long way toward justifying what happened prior to the law being expanded (in the same way the 13th amendment justified Lincoln's freeing of slaves; or the Lend-Lease Act justified Roosevelt's "ships for bases" deal, which violated the Neutrality Act. It shows intent to make it less questionable. I.e., it would be *worse* if the law hadn't been expanded.
said by dnoyeB:Do you really think the telcos would be pushing for immunity against nothing!? If it was nothing the telcos would be pusing to speed the case up to the Supreme court where it could rule in their favor. That's just a form of "if you have nothing to hide, why do you oppose wiretapping? If anything, you'd want the government to have even more access so they could overlook you as a suspect."
It's amusing coming from people who violently oppose that line of reasoning.
Mark |
|
