dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
7670
share rss forum feed
« Here we go
page: 1 · 2 · next


FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 recommendation

AT&T being good citizen after 9/11 attacks

I just see an organization that was determined to help the US defend itself against terrorists after the 9/11 attacks. And if all the paperwork was sometimes delayed and not all the i's dotted and t's crossed, I am ok with that.

Expand your moderator at work


Steve
I know your IP address
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Foothill Ranch, CA
kudos:5

5 recommendations

reply to FFH

Re: AT&T being good citizen after 9/11 attacks

said by FFH:

I just see an organization that was determined to help the US defend itself against terrorists after the 9/11 attacks. And if all the paperwork was sometimes delayed and not all the i's dotted and t's crossed, I am ok with that.
Here, let me fix this for you:
I do not believe in the rule of law


dib22

join:2002-01-27
Kansas City, MO
reply to FFH

I remember when AT&T actually stood up for its customers rights. I remember when AT&T followed the letter of the law instead of rolling over when ever the govt. asked.

Expand your moderator at work

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

1 recommendation

reply to Anon

Re: AT&T being good citizen after 9/11 attacks

said by Jim Kirk:

said by FFH:

I just see an organization that was determined to help the US defend itself against terrorists after the 9/11 attacks. And if all the paperwork was sometimes delayed and not all the i's dotted and t's crossed, I am ok with that.
In many cases the FBI never got subpoenas, and therefore broke the law. You are trolling.
What required the FBI to get supoeneas? Are you ignoring the role of 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B)?

Also, don't forget 18 U.S.C. 2702(a)(3) & (c). It recognizes telcos legitimate participation with law enforcement due to exigent circumstances.

And, that law was even broadened by the Patriot Act. Instead of a "reasonable belief" in "imminent danger," it was changed to merely "good faith belief" in danger (not imminent.).

That and how 2511 was used as the basis of so-called "immunity" goes a long way to prove that the Executive branch was acting judiciously during that period between 9/11 and amendment of FISA via the Patriot Act.

If the Executive wasn't, those laws wouldn't have been expanded and used the way they were.

Mark
Expand your moderator at work

cyclone_z

join:2006-06-19
Ames, IA
reply to FFH

Re: AT&T being good citizen after 9/11 attacks

said by FFH:

I just see an organization that was determined to help the US defend itself against terrorists after the 9/11 attacks. And if all the paperwork was sometimes delayed and not all the i's dotted and t's crossed, I am ok with that.
I see an organization that was determined to help itself to heaps of taxpayer money (you know they were paid for this, don't you?)

I also see someone who can't RTFA.


Jim Kirk
Premium
join:2005-12-09

1 edit

2 recommendations

reply to dib22

said by dib22:

I remember when AT&T actually stood up for its customers rights. I remember when AT&T followed the letter of the law instead of rolling over when ever the govt. asked.
Really? When was that?


NOVA_Guy
ObamaCare Kills Americans
Premium
join:2002-03-05
reply to FFH

Are you also OK with the supposed paperwork not even existing?

It's not a matter of not dotting i's and crossing t's in this case. It's a matter of outright violation of the law. Those agents who played a role in this should find themselves in prison wearing some black and white stripes. And hopefully they will be readily identified and introduced to all the other prisoners as FBI agents too.

And their cronies at AT&T, as well as those from the Bush administration who helped and those from the Obama administration who are still helping, should find themselves sitting in jail for this as well. Perhaps if consequences for breaking the law were enforced there would be less lawbreaking.
--
Ted Kennedy is dead, and now so are his dreams of an impoverished enslaved America beholden to its government. Congratulations to Scott Brown for keeping the American Dream alive!


amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22
reply to dib22

said by dib22:

I remember when AT&T followed the letter of the law instead of rolling over when ever the govt. asked.
But, they did follow the law.

1. The Executive Branch possesses an inherent power of surveillance.

2. The Legislative Branch is co-equal to the Executive. It cannot legislate away the Executive's power. It can only create a framework (FISA) for the Executive to operate within, without impeding the Executive's power.

3. The Executive retains the power to conduct surveillance which the framework (FISA) does not accommodate.

4. 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) is a recognition of that power, and how FISA wasn't intended to be everything.

5. That law was the basis of so-called immunity. Even if there had been any doubt about Congress's intent concerning that law, such doubts were eliminated when Congress said telcos were immune from prosecution if they adhered to that law (only between 9/11 and passage of the Patriot Act to better provide for new circumstances).

If you don't like the law, then you should work to get it repealed. If you don't like that the balance of powers between the Executive and Legislative is imperfect, you should work to call a Constitutional Convention to rewrite the Constitution.

All I hear are people complaining that, essentially, an imperfect system *worked*.

Mark


morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000
reply to Jim Kirk

said by Jim Kirk:

Really? When was that?
In a drug induced coma fantasy.


ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA
Reviews:
·RCN CABLE
·Comcast

said by morbo:

said by Jim Kirk:

Really? When was that?
In a drug induced coma fantasy.
in an episode of LOST
--
sbcglobal.net speedtest result 11/11/09 - 5256kbps

33358088
Premium
join:2008-09-23
kudos:2
reply to FFH

said by FFH:

I just see an organization that was determined to help the US defend itself against terrorists after the 9/11 attacks. And if all the paperwork was sometimes delayed and not all the i's dotted and t's crossed, I am ok with that.
and what happens when were all terrorists
then what

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to FFH

said by FFH:

I just see an organization that was determined to help the US defend itself against terrorists after the 9/11 attacks. And if all the paperwork was sometimes delayed and not all the i's dotted and t's crossed, I am ok with that.

I guess you'd be ok with being falsely accused, convicted, and possibly executed based on sloppy police work, lost paperwork, 'little white lies' between LEO's and prosecutors, and who know what else in the way of illegal and shoddy adherence to the law.

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out.

Feel free to add your own verse.


FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
reply to NOVA_Guy

said by NOVA_Guy:

Those agents who played a role in this should find themselves in prison wearing some black and white stripes. And hopefully they will be readily identified and introduced to all the other prisoners as FBI agents too.
So, for trying to protect you and other US citizens from evil terrorists, you feel they should be sent to prison, outed to other prisoners, and maybe be murdered. Is that your idea of justice?
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page

Expand your moderator at work

nasadude

join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to FFH

Re: AT&T being good citizen after 9/11 attacks

said by FFH:

So, for trying to protect you and other US citizens from evil terrorists, you feel they should be sent to prison, outed to other prisoners, and maybe be murdered. Is that your idea of justice?
no, they should be sent to prison for breaking the law.

do you even believe in the rule of law? or just law for the little people, not corporations?

so if I robbed a bank and donated the money to charity, that would be OK? It sounds like you are saying the ends justify the means and the law doesn't matter.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to amigo_boy

I bet you can recite that quote forward and backwards WHILE under the influence.

Since you skirted my question the last time (Here) lets ask it again and this time WITHOUT you asking me a question as a response.

said by Skippy25:

So by your train of thought what was the FISA court setup for?

Sounds like everything was in place and there was no need for this court and yet it was setup for........... ?

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to FFH

No, for violating the laws that they are suppose to be following.

So you don't mind if all law enforcement officials dont follow the law as long as it is to protect us right? Screw Miranda, burden of proof, and any other little inconvenient technicality of law. It's for your protection.

Sometimes you simply amaze me at the shear stupidity in your comments. Do you honestly think before you post?



FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
reply to amigo_boy

said by amigo_boy:

said by dib22:

I remember when AT&T followed the letter of the law instead of rolling over when ever the govt. asked.
But, they did follow the law.

1. The Executive Branch possesses an inherent power of surveillance.

3. The Executive retains the power to conduct surveillance which the framework (FISA) does not accommodate.


4. 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) is a recognition of that power, and how FISA wasn't intended to be everything.

5. That law was the basis of so-called immunity. Even if there had been any doubt about Congress's intent concerning that law, such doubts were eliminated when Congress said telcos were immune from prosecution if they adhered to that law (only between 9/11 and passage of the Patriot Act to better provide for new circumstances).
Seems like a judge today agrees with you:

»news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100122/tc···lligence
A federal judge has tossed out a pair of lawsuits accusing government officials during former president George W. Bush's era of "dragnet spying" on people's Internet and telephone communications.

US District Court Judge Vaughn Walker said in a written decision late Thursday that the named plaintiffs did not show they were victims of spying and therefore lacked standing to champion the class-action suits.

"A citizen may not gain standing by claiming a right to have the government follow the law," Walker wrote.

Justice Department lawyers countered that the lawsuit, and similar cases bundled with it, should be thrown out based on a State Secrets Privilege protecting intelligence information for the sake of national security
.

--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page



dib22

join:2002-01-27
Kansas City, MO
reply to amigo_boy

about the warrantless wiretaps (from your post above)... yes yes this is how they defend it... why are they afraid of the oversight?

the law that is/was in place was the FISA... what are they doing that they are afraid of judicial review (and a pretty quick and weak judicial review as it is/was with FISA anyway)??

about this article... indeed AT&T might be able to claim they were not breaking the law, they can simply say the fbi was breaking the law, however, AT&T knew what was going on, they had to... allowing verbal requests, not even getting it on paper, come on... not that it matters... they have the govt protecting them on this either way.



dib22

join:2002-01-27
Kansas City, MO
reply to Jim Kirk

"[I]t is better that a few criminals escape than that the privacies of life of all the people be exposed to the agents of the government, who will act at their own discretion, the honest and the dishonest, unauthorized and unrestrained by courts."

»www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/08/ho···ears-ago



woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
reply to amigo_boy

For the millionth time, why didn't they get an effing subpoena after the fact. It is apparent that none of you telco fanboyz have ever been in the service to defend our nation against the same Bull$hit that we have gone through. the president doesn't have "your so called" inherent rights. Why the hell do we have a constitution and separation of powers. I don't remember any of this in school. Show me in the Constitution where the Prez can have signing statements or disregard the constitution, Just because our congress is spineless and the judiciary are bought and paid for doesn't make it right.
--
BlooMe


amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22
reply to Skippy25

said by Skippy25:

I bet you can recite that quote forward and backwards WHILE under the influence.

Since you skirted my question the last time (Here) lets ask it again and this time WITHOUT you asking me a question as a response.

said by Skippy25:

So by your train of thought what was the FISA court setup for?

Sounds like everything was in place and there was no need for this court and yet it was setup for........... ?
1. We know FISA didn't strip the executive of all power to operate outside of FISA (if unforeseen circumstances arose). 18 USC 2511 is proof of that. As was Congress's use of that law as the basis of so-called "immunity."

2. We know events of 9/11 were unforeseen circumstances which FISA didn't accommodate. That's evidenced by Congress expanding FISA with the Patriot Act to better accommodate the Executive's actions (which Congress validated as covered by 18 USC 2511).

It seems like you want me to prove that FISA as it existed prior to 2006 wasn't sufficient. I can't prove that. All I can say is that the President and Congress felt it wasn't sufficient.

I believe it's your responsibility to prove FISA was sufficient, and that the President and Congress was wrong.

Knock yourself out. But, it doesn't change the fact that the system of balanced powers worked mostly as it's intended.

Mark


dib22

join:2002-01-27
Kansas City, MO
reply to morbo

said by morbo:

In a drug induced coma fantasy.
it may shock you that in the past more corporations had a conscience. only a couple still exist today so i can understand how you might think it not possible.

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22
reply to woody7

said by woody7:

For the millionth time, why didn't they get an effing subpoena after the fact.
There's nothing in 18 USC 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) requiring a subpoena. It says the exact opposite. It says the Executive can tell the telco that no warrant is needed.

It's a recognition that when Congress created FISA, it could not anticipate every possible surveillance requirement in the future. That its law could not render the Executive powerless in such circumstances.

I agree it's not a desirable situation to be in. It leads to a constitutional crisis. An ambiguity of co-equal powers. Fortunately, it was resolved with an expansion of FISA and the President folding into that expansion.

Mark


doc69
Premium
join:2004-08-01
reply to FFH

said by FFH:

I just see an organization that was determined to help the US defend itself against terrorists after the 9/11 attacks. And if all the paperwork was sometimes delayed and not all the i's dotted and t's crossed, I am ok with that.
And this is why this country is in the shit hole!!!
--
I'll keep my God, my freedom, my guns, and my money. You can keep "THE CHANGE."

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22
reply to dib22

said by dib22:

the law that is/was in place was the FISA... what are they doing that they are afraid of judicial review (and a pretty quick and weak judicial review as it is/was with FISA anyway)??
It could have been a power play. The Executive may have used Congress's resolution to use "all means necessary" to garner more power to itself than Congress intended.

I'm not really arguing that FISA wouldn't have worked. Only that, according to our form of government, the Executive had the power to do what it did. Especially considering Congress's sweeping authorization of near-wartime powers. Congress validated the Executive's claim when it expanded FISA. And, when it used 2511 as the basis if so-called "immunity" (which was hardly immunity when it was based upon an existing law).

But, yes, I agree, there could have been a strain of politics involved, where the Executive saw it as an opportunity to enhance its own powers. That's the way the three co-equal branches of government work. It's expected.

Mark

WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX

1 edit
reply to amigo_boy

said by amigo_boy:

said by Skippy25:

I bet you can recite that quote forward and backwards WHILE under the influence.

Since you skirted my question the last time (Here) lets ask it again and this time WITHOUT you asking me a question as a response.

said by Skippy25:

So by your train of thought what was the FISA court setup for?

Sounds like everything was in place and there was no need for this court and yet it was setup for........... ?
1. We know FISA didn't strip the executive of all power to operate outside of FISA (if unforeseen circumstances arose). 18 USC 2511 is proof of that. As was Congress's use of that law as the basis of so-called "immunity."

2. We know events of 9/11 were unforeseen circumstances which FISA didn't accommodate. That's evidenced by Congress expanding FISA with the Patriot Act to better accommodate the Executive's actions (which Congress validated as covered by 18 USC 2511).

It seems like you want me to prove that FISA as it existed prior to 2006 wasn't sufficient. I can't prove that. All I can say is that the President and Congress felt it wasn't sufficient.

I believe it's your responsibility to prove FISA was sufficient, and that the President and Congress was wrong.

Knock yourself out. But, it doesn't change the fact that the system of balanced powers worked mostly as it's intended.

Mark
The system did NOT work as intended. The government along with corporate interests BROKE the law repeatedly. In the same spirit of TK's do things first then take care of the paperwork, I would suggest to:

1. Arrest all involved, including their supporters, since they are a danger to US constitutional principles (I have a "good belief" of that)

2. Transport them to a secret location and torture them (ahem, "robust interviewing") since waterboarding is not really torture, right ?

3. Summarily judge them in front of a military tribunal, in secret, using evidence obtained using torture and hearsay evidence, too, while we are at it

4. Execute them and fake a suicide or heart attack

5. Write a letter of apology about an unfortunate misunderstanding in case anyone finds evidence towards their post mortem exoneration

6. Blame a corporation for the misunderstanding. Since a corporation is a fictive entity, no one can be really punished, right ?

How do you like it when it applies potentially to YOU ?