baj475
join:2004-11-02
Chico, CA Reviews:
 ·Comcast
 ·Future Nine Corp..
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
Re: Good luck.. But a Longshot... TK,
Did you flunk civics? Nobody is trying to remove the ability of law enforcement to monitor terrorist activities. The FFF, like many of us, are just demanding that that they follow the law and not violate and stomp on our constitutional rights. All we ask is that they follow the simple expedient of obtaining a warrant before they tap someone's phone line. While I do not dispute that terrorist are a clear and real threat, a government whose officials are not required to obey laws protecting our rights is an even bigger threat. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by baj475:just demanding that that they follow the law They did follow the law. 18 USC 2511 has been the law for many years. It accomodates executive power to authorize warrantless access to telco data. Instead of challenging this law to begin with, EFF pursued personal-injury lawsuits. This resulted in Congress adding even more "congressional intent" to the law when they referred to 2511 as the basis for so-called "immunity."
Mark |
|
baj475
join:2004-11-02
Chico, CA Reviews:
·Comcast
·Future Nine Corp..
| According to the original post, the basis of the EFF action is that the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) "improperly attempts to take away Americans' claims arising out of the First and Fourth Amendments, violates the federal government's separation of powers as established in the Constitution, and robs innocent telecom customers of their rights without due process of law." Sounds like a challenge to this law to me.
Furthermore, does not "accommodates executive power to authorize warrantless access" sound like a violation of the separation of powers doctrine and Fourth Amendment to you? Congress, even with executive approval, simply does not have the power to amend the constitution. If 18 USC 2511 is declared unconstitutional, then it is not the law. With respect to pursuing personal-injury lawsuits, how else would you establish standing? |
|
|
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by baj475:According to the original post, the basis of the EFF action is that the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) "improperly attempts to take away Americans' claims arising out of the First and Fourth Amendments, violates the federal government's separation of powers as established in the Constitution, and robs innocent telecom customers of their rights without due process of law." Sounds like a challenge to this law to me. It just seems like the long way to the real, alleged problem. The amendments they're challenging only referred to 2511 which says telcos will not be subject to any liability if the executive branch certified no warrant was necessary.
Therefore, they're really challenging 2511, not the recent amendments (which included so-called immunity, which only referred to 2511). They could have challenged 2511 before the amendments. They could have challenged it before Sept. 11.
The personal injury lawsuits would have only resulted in the telcos producing the certification mentioned in 2511. Not much would have come from it. Just a procedural move where the only question was whether it would be a matter of public record or not.
said by baj475:Congress, even with executive approval, simply does not have the power to amend the constitution. I don't understand what you're saying. The Legislative branch cannot strip the Executive branch of its inherent power. That's why Congress carved out an exception to warrant requirements. Read the Gonzalez paper I linked to earlier.
Mark |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to baj475
said by baj475:TK, Did you flunk civics? Nobody is trying to remove the ability of law enforcement to monitor terrorist activities. The FFF, like many of us, are just demanding that that they follow the law and not violate and stomp on our constitutional rights. All we ask is that they follow the simple expedient of obtaining a warrant before they tap someone's phone line. While I do not dispute that terrorist are a clear and real threat, a government whose officials are not required to obey laws protecting our rights is an even bigger threat. That is not at all what this is about. You are being spun. The law was followed. The question is, whose law?
The law proposed by the executive branch and approved by the legislative branch, or the law as created (I don't think that's too strong a word here) by the courts?
The EFF is all about activist lawyers and judges setting the "correct" policy and legal environment, being in charge of the war on terror, so to speak. They want the judicial system to be in control.
Why? Because that's where they can most effectively enforce their agenda, which is a minority view and not supported by the elected branches of government. |
|
baj475
join:2004-11-02
Chico, CA Reviews:
·Comcast
·Future Nine Corp..
| reply to amigo_boy
"I don't understand what you're saying. The Legislative branch cannot strip the Executive branch of its inherent power." Let me rephrase. Congress does not have the power to amend the Fourth Amendment.
Missed the link but don't bother posting it. Any halfway competent attorney should be able to come up with arguments to support any side of any issue and Gonzalez was hardly unbiased. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by baj475:Gonzalez was hardly unbiased. I agree. I'm not a fan of him or that Administration. But, he produced some interesting historic notes concerning an Executive power to conduct surveillance.
And, it's true that the legislative can't eliminate the power of the executive. There are times that governing by committee isn't effective. That's why there is a balance of power. If the executive needs to act, he does. The committee (legislative) later amends the law to better accommodate modern needs.
Mark |
|
baj475
join:2004-11-02
Chico, CA Reviews:
·Comcast
·Future Nine Corp..
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
I do not think that I am being spun. Maybe you missed my point. It is the elected branches of government that are a bigger threat. If it takes activist lawyers and judges to keep the elected branches of government in check, then more power to the activist lawyers and judges.
You say that the law was followed but that the question is who's law. Are you suggesting that statutes that violate the Fourth Amendment are nonetheless the law? If so, I disagree. If you are suggesting that this is a minority view then put me on the side of the minority.
My fleas do not even have a dog. ;=) |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by baj475:Are you suggesting that statutes that violate the Fourth Amendment are nonetheless the law? The fourth amendment is broadly worded. It's just a prohibition on "unreasonable" searches and seizures without a warrant. The definition of "reasonable" expands and contracts over time, depending upon the threats faced by society.
Claiming that the fourth amendment is some kind of absolute standard is false. The devils are always in the details. And, 18 USC 2511 has been on the books for many years.
The only thing different about this episode is 1) we heard about it. 2) Congress over ruled a trial court judge's decision that proof of compliance with 2511 had to be done publicaly. Essentially, Congress reaffirmed its intent that 2511 (and recent use of it) was "reasonable."
There might be a reason the SC would find 2511 too broad to be reasonable. But, the law was there to cover the President's broad actions.
Mark |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to baj475
said by baj475:I do not think that I am being spun. Maybe you missed my point. It is the elected branches of government that are a bigger threat. If it takes activist lawyers and judges to keep the elected branches of government in check, then more power to the activist lawyers and judges. To me it is spin when a purported "news story" simply echoes and amplifies one side's point of view. It is analysis and observation when you look at what are the real issues at stake. The real issue is, who's setting the agenda for the war on terror? The elected branches passing laws and making policy and executive decisions, or the judicial branch inserting themselves into every process as the ultimate decision-maker?
One man's "checks and balances" are another man's "judicial activism".
I am simply observing that those on the fringes of the political spectrum tend to look to the courts and the legal system as the branch that they want to be top dog. Why? Because it is far easier, cheaper, and more effective to sue, harass, and otherwise inhibit your enemy (whether that be the government or a private corporation doing the government's bidding) using the courts than it is to try to get officials elected who have your point of view.
This lawsuit by the EFF is just another arrow shot at their target. They have lost every battle so far on the so-called "telco immunity" issue, and they'll continue to lose (I predict).
You say that the law was followed but that the question is who's law. Are you suggesting that statutes that violate the Fourth Amendment are nonetheless the law? If so, I disagree. If you are suggesting that this is a minority view then put me on the side of the minority.
(NITPICK)I said "whose law" (correct English) not "who's law".(/NITPICK)  Link
Whether this violates the Fourth Amendment or not remains to be seen. That is a court decision. I strongly suspect the outcome will be "it does NOT", perhaps on appeal. Only the most activist of judges tend to go the other way on this issue. Yet the EFF is going to keep trying.
The minority view I was referring to was not the Fourth Amendment in general, but so-called "telco immunity" in particular. Clearly the bills were passed by a Democratic controlled Congress, indicating that only the fringes were against it, and the middle-of-the-roaders were for it.
Poll data is interesting. When the question is asked like this:
quote:
Do you think Congress should give the phone companies amnesty/immunity from legal action against the companies? Or
Should citizens who believe their rights have been violated be free to take legal action against those phone companies and let the courts decide the outcome?
Link to source
it skewed about 55% "let the courts decide", 35% "give amnesty".
When it's asked like this:
quote:
Do you agree or disagree that if a company assists the United States government in tracking down terrorists, it should be protected from lawsuits related to that assistance, since otherwise no company could afford to help our own government stop terrorists?
Link to source
you end up with 74% "agree" and 21% "disagree".
Obviously these questions are highly biased in the way they are framed (I'll leave it to you to guess who sponsored each poll!). But, I think the stronger result obtained by asking the question in the "protect us from terrorism" frame rather than the "let me sue them in court" frame is indicative that it's the majority view. |
|
| reply to amigo_boy
Smiles and Nods... Amigo you wouldn't know the truth, how to decipher the truth, or where the truth lies if it smacked you on the head. Also, your attempt at playing lawyer sucks. Go to law school and we'll take you seriously. Otherwise, stop copying and pasting clauses that you have little understanding about or their meaning of. It makes you look like a stooge. Really, it does. If you want to pretend you understand the fundamentals of something, at least have the education to back it up. |
|
FAQFixerPremium
join:2004-06-28
Powder Springs, GA
kudos:1 | reply to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas: That is not at all what this is about. You are being spun. The law was followed. The question is, whose law? The law proposed by the executive branch and approved by the legislative branch, or the law as created (I don't think that's too strong a word here) by the courts? The EFF is all about activist lawyers and judges setting the "correct" policy and legal environment, being in charge of the war on terror, so to speak. They want the judicial system to be in control. Why? Because that's where they can most effectively enforce their agenda, which is a minority view and not supported by the elected branches of government. Well said. |
|
baj475
join:2004-11-02
Chico, CA Reviews:
·Comcast
·Future Nine Corp..
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
I did not see the original post as simply echoing and amplifing one side's point of view. To me it merely stated what the EFF was planing on doing without any embellishment of the merits of either side.
I will be more careful not to mix up whose and who's.
Maybe DSLReports should install a grammar checker in addition to their spell checker.
That is the problem with polls. The results can be easily skewed by how the question is framed. I am not debating or disagreeing as to what is the majority view. To me it appears that the majority subscribes to the view that there is no need for the Fourth Amendment as it only protects those who are acting illegally. They do not see it as a way of helping to insure that government officials do not abuse their power. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by baj475:To me it appears that the majority subscribes to the view that there is no need for the Fourth Amendment as it only protects those who are acting illegally. They do not see it as a way of helping to insure that government officials do not abuse their power. IMO the majority of Americans haven't thought about it much, and want both protection from over-reaching government, and an efficient/effective government enforcement of laws.
The question is whether those two goals are mutually exclusive. Or, is perfection realistic?
But, I think it's incorrect to ascribe an extreme position to the majority just because they don't share your own view of where the balance lies.
Mark |
|
