dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
39
share rss forum feed

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22
reply to dib22

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

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If you don't like the law, then you should work to get it repealed.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


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

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.



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

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

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


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

ok

Expand your moderator at work