Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
1 edit | reply to WernerSchutz
Re: All the disputed requests for anti-terrorism said by WernerSchutz:excellent point. since the guys doing this seem to be breaking this law called the constitution, let's throw them in jail and worry about the paperwork later. Along with them we should also throw in jail their suporters, as TK is, and worry about the paperwork later. This is non-news, and an example of DSLR's "blogging" bias.
The events described occurred before the Patriot Act was expanded in 2006 to accommodate the President's claimed needs. During the time which the President claimed 18 USC 2511 as the basis for his surveillance activities. The law which was used as a basis for so-called immunity (which only covered the period from 9/11 and passage of the Patriot Act.).
This is just regurgitating what was already known to animate the pitchforking mob.
As much as you don't trust the government, be wary of the motives of those who animate you.
Mark |
|
1 edit | And it was illegal then, just as it should be now regardless of what the industry purchased and our president did to try to cover their backsides.
There were laws in place they were to follow that granted them the ability to do what they did with oversight (start the tap and get a warrant within X time). This is the same oversight that is incorporated into the very foundation of our constitution (3 branches) to help prevent corruption and power distortion. They ignored that law and then passed another one saying it was OK to ignore that law. Sorry that distortion of power does not fly regardless of what you nutz think. If what they did was legal than there was no basis on creating another law to shield the industry from invading the privacy of millions of people. The shear fact they had to pass another law shows they were in the wrong and know they were in the wrong. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by Skippy25:There were laws in place they were to follow that granted them the ability to do what they did with oversight ... 1. The Executive Branch has an inherent power to conduct surveillance. The branches of government being co-equal, the Legislative Branch cannot legislate away that power. It can only create a framework for the Executive Branch to operate within for foreseen needs.
2. 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) is a recognition of that inherent Executive power, and Congress's recognition of it (outside Congress's framework). Furthermore, the Congressional debates over FISA show that Congress feared that it could legislate too far, and be found unconstitutional. Leading to this clause of 2511.
3. The recent Congress reaffirmed this intent when it used 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) as the basis for so-called "immunity."
4. The recent Congress reaffirmed the President's claim that its framework didn't accommodate new, unforeseen needs when it revised FISA with the Patriot Act.
That's how Constitutional government works. All I hear is a bunch of misinformed people (who read imbalanced blogs), complaining about how the government should follow a constitution that doesn't exist. And, they're too lazy to amend the Constitution to be what they say it should be.
Mark |
|
| I think you're confusing a constitutional government with a monarchy. You must be one of John Yoo's best students. |
|
