Government Will Release Some Telco Wiretap Lobbying DocumentsThough they'll protect AT&T and Verizon company identities 11:01AM Tuesday Nov 10 2009 by Karl Bodetags: business · privacyA Federal Judge has demanded, three times now, that the Obama Administration hand over documents that highlight how major phone companies AT&T and Verizon lobbied for legal immunity for their involvement in the government's warrantless wiretap program. The government, with no real legal footing to stand on, has now tried to delay that release three times in order to keep those documents out of the ongoing Congressional discussion about domestic wiretapping. According to the EFF they're finally making headway, and some documents should be released this week: ...on Friday, the government reported to the appeals court that it has finally given up the fight over a significant portion of the records, including communications between agencies and Congress about amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). We expect to receive the documents later this week, and we will post them on the website as soon as we can after that. In a very clear act of non-transparency, there's still a significant number of baby bell lobbying documents the government is protecting. The Obama administration also still plans to redact the identities of any specific companies from any documents they do release -- and are not disclosing communications within the Executive Branch concerning telco lobbying.
Related:- No, Obama Isn't Taking Over The Internets
- Verizon Named Most Trusted Company With Your Privacy. Really?
- Senators Push To Strip Telco Immunity
- Shocker: Informed Consumers Want Privacy, Not Tailored Ads
- Government Stalls Handover Of Telco Immunity Lobbying Records
- Court: Uncle Sam Must Hand Over Immunity Lobbying Docs
- Obama Protects AT&T, Verizon Lobbying Records
- EFF Wages War On Fine Print
|
 PapaMidnight
join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD | Won't it be easy to identify them? Unless their names are mentioned by acronym only (ATT, VZN, CCS, etc.), won't it be rather easy to identify each individual company simply by character amounts? | |
|  | 
rockhounds_5
Premium
join:2004-07-29
Lewisville, TX
clubs: | Re: Won't it be easy to identify them? Yes. Let's protect the rights of people like Nidal Hasan. | |
| | | 
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
 ·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: Won't it be easy to identify them? "Re: Won't it be easy to identify them?
Yes. Let's protect the rights of people like Nidal Hasan."
As tragic as it was, what does this have to do with the topic? He will get his day in court, or do we just hang em? "I remember Bushes "lets getem" and we never did. And isn't that supposed to be what America is about, protecting "everyones" rights? Oh and by the way from what I read, they being the Army knew of his trying to contact "alqueda" shouldn't this have red flags popping up. I want this to be investigated, and not covered up, and not glad he lived, but maybe we can actually get to the bottom of it, then do what needs to be done. Peace
--
BlooMe | |
| | | | lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
| Re: Won't it be easy to identify them? said by woody7  :As tragic as it was, what does this have to do with the topic? .....yada yada yada... Oh and by the way from what I read, they being the Army knew of his trying to contact "alqueda" shouldn't this have red flags popping up. I want this to be investigated, and not covered up, and not glad he lived, but maybe we can actually get to the bottom of it, then do what needs to be done. Peace Yes they knew, but were afraid to act because of political correctness and the possibility of being labled a racist or a denier of civil rights by the left leaning idiots of this once great country. These actions by the democrat controlled kangaroo courts will lead to more acts like this with increasing severity. PEACE (if you can find it) | |
| | | | |
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: Won't it be easy to identify them? is there some reason when you quoted me you had to edit it? I happen to be a left leaning idiot who happens to believe in the scrap of paper called the constitution that all the right leaning "idiots" seem to $hit all over in the name of "ultra patriotism" what branch of the service were you in, and what wars did you fight in, just curious.
--
BlooMe | |
| | | | | | lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
| Re: Won't it be easy to identify them? said by woody7 :is there some reason when you quoted me you had to edit it? Yes, you were bloviating.
... what branch of the service were you in, and what wars did you fight in, just curious.
I honorably served my country from August 14th, 1975 through January 1st 1998. So you can loose the "I'm better because I served" attitude.
I'm a registered independent and I just call it like I see it. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·BroadVoice
| said by woody7 :"Re: Won't it be easy to identify them? Yes. Let's protect the rights of people like Nidal Hasan." As tragic as it was, what does this have to do with the topic? Although there isnt a direct correlation (in this case), the "point" of the government/telco partnership was to track people like him calling known terrorists in other countries.
--
"If it's to be a bloodbath, let it be now. Appeasement is not the answer."
-Ronald Reagan-
»www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html
| |
| | | | |
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: Won't it be easy to identify them? Not to beat a dead horse, but.......there wasn't a "partnership", the telcos violated the law at the behest of the government. If not mistaken, it is against the law to wiretap a call without a warrant. All they had to do was get a "FISA" court to get an ok, even 72 hours afterwords. How hard is it to do that? Only if they thought they wouldn't get one. This is what everyone (being the government and telcos) are/were afraid of. We are becoming no better than the countries we have problems with. From my understanding of the "constitution", no where does it state that in time of "war" that you can shit on it contrary to ultra cons.I don't really have a problem with fisa other than it is secret. peace
--
BlooMe | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | Re: Won't it be easy to identify them? Because you say so
--
BlooMe | |
| | | | | | 
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by woody7 :If not mistaken, it is against the law to wiretap a call without a warrant. All they had to do was get a "FISA" court to get an ok, even 72 hours afterwords. You are mistaken. FISA is not the only, exclusive means the Executive branch has to conduct surveillance.
Read the two laws I posted earlier in this thread. 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) specifically addresses warrantless wiretapping as a legitimate exception to FISA (see (2)(a)(ii)(A)).
18 USC 2511 is the basis of the so-called immunity deal. [1] That makes it hardly an immunity deal when the telcos already had that law available to them. The immunity deal simply fast-tracked the discovery process, the ascertaining whether telcos received the proper "certification."
I believe the government wanted to fast-track the determination because there was a period (according to Comey's testimony) when something was "certified" by the President, not AG Ashcroft.[2] That period of time (between Ashcroft's surgery, and being replaced by Gonzalez) was about one year.
I believe they wanted to avoid the legal/constitutional challenge of whether a member of the Executive's staff must do the certification, or the Executive himself. (I.e., is it a recognition of Executive power? Or, a limitation on the Executive, requiring him to use an expert on his staff?).
Finally, the reason FISA isn't the only, exclusive means of Executive surveillance is that the Executive branch has historically possessed an inherent power to surveil. The Legislative branch, being equal in power, cannot strip the Executive of that power. It can only legislate and provide a framework for the Executive to operate within for known, anticipated circumstances. If an unanticipated circumstance arises, the Executive still retains its inherent power.
That's why Congress provided expansive powers, such as 2511. When Congress passed FISA, it debated how it could not go too far in limiting the Executive's power. AG Gonzalez's paper[3] details the history.
FISA was amended to better accommodate the Executive's claimed requirements. Therefore, so-called immunity only covered actions which occurred between 9/11/2001 and the reform of FISA. The reform of FISA doesn't eliminate 2511. It just bring's the Executive's previous exercise of 2511 within the framework established by the Legislative.
Therefore, it's childish for people to say "they broke the law." The law provides for Executive surveillance outside FISA. FISA was amended to bring the contemporary requirements within FISA. And, so-called "immunity" was based upon the existing law, and limited only to the period of time before FISA was reformed. That's all very legal.
[1] See »www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/F···_xml.pdf at Page 88, SEC. 802 (a)(2), "any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to a certification in writing under section 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) or 2709(b)"
[2] »thinkprogress.org/comey-testimony/
[3] »www.usdoj.gov/opa/whitepaperonns···ties.pdf
Mark | |
| | | | | | | lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
| Re: Won't it be easy to identify them? said by amigo_boy :Therefore, it's childish for people to say "they broke the law." But that's all they really have, thus the need for these continued fishing expeditions. | |
| | | | | | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| said by amigo_boy :... [Assertion of utter nonsense here]... All LIES, with no foundation in fact. No matter how often you repeat your litany of errata, it will not obscure the FACT that warrantless wiretapping was against the LAW, remains unconstitutional, should be repealed, and those responsible for it should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law as it existed before the Congress passed the FISA Modernization Act exonerating the criminals behind the most massive violation of American's privacy rights in our history. The fact that the USSC has not yet rendered the entirety of the ex post facto section of the FISA Modernization Act null and void does not mean it cannot or will not at some future date when our country has the wisdom and will to restore the peoples' constitutional rights.
Until then, fuck the right-wing tyrants, and the whore they rode in on. | |
| | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
2 edits | Re: Won't it be easy to identify them? said by ross :The fact that the USSC has not yet rendered the entirety of the ex post facto section of the FISA Modernization Act null and void does not mean it cannot or will not at some future date when our country has the wisdom and will to restore the peoples' constitutional rights. That may be true. I'm just outlining how things are today, not what "may" happen.
In the meantime, it seems like some people forgot everything they learned in their civics and political science classes.
- The three branches of government are co-equal.
- The Executive branch has an inherent power to conduct surveillance.
- 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) is a recognition of that power. (Note the "or" condition with (A), which refers to FISA.).
- So-called "immunity" was an pragmatic attempt by the Legislative branch to avoid a Constitutional crisis between the Executive and Judicial after the Judicial ruled that the Executive could not invoke the state-secrets defense (and the Executive refused to yield).
If we had hot-heads like you governing our country, we'd be no better than Latin American countries like Honduras, where politics are ruled by those who desire to inflict their views on others, rather than seeking middle ground and avoidance of Constitutional crises.
EDIT: The Constitution's prohibition of Ex Post Facto laws concerns making previously legal activities criminal. Not making previously illegal activities legal, let alone immune from civil action (which is what so-called "immunity" was limited to).
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| Re: Won't it be easy to identify them? said by amigo_boy :said by ross :The fact that the USSC has not yet rendered the entirety of the ex post facto section of the FISA Modernization Act null and void does not mean it cannot or will not at some future date when our country has the wisdom and will to restore the peoples' constitutional rights. That may be true. I'm just outlining how things are today, not what "may" happen. In the meantime, it seems like some people forgot everything they learned in their civics and political science classes. - The three branches of government are co-equal. - The Executive branch has an inherent power to conduct surveillance. - 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) is a recognition of that power. (Note the "or" condition with (A), which refers to FISA.). - So-called "immunity" was an pragmatic attempt by the Legislative branch to avoid a Constitutional crisis between the Executive and Judicial after the Judicial ruled that the Executive could not invoke the state-secrets defense (and the Executive refused to yield). If we had hot-heads like you governing our country, we'd be no better than Latin American countries like Honduras, where politics are ruled by those who desire to inflict their views on others, rather than seeking middle ground and avoidance of Constitutional crises. EDIT: The Constitution's prohibition of Ex Post Facto laws concerns making previously legal activities criminal. Not making previously illegal activities legal, let alone immune from civil action (which is what so-called "immunity" was limited to). Mark The only people who have forgotten the three branches of government are co-equal are the idiots and would-be dictators who claim the Executive branch has unlimited power to void the Constitution whenever they see fit. Furthermore, cow-towing to a rogue president/vice president who believe they can flout the law with impunity does nothing to prevent the certainty these illegal acts will be the cause of a constitutional crisis, though it may have been temporarily stayed. These illegal transgressions against the American people cannot stand if the rule of law is to continue.
Title 18 and the FISA court were both established to define, curtail and contain the excesses of power illegally wielded by the executive branch in previous administrations. Bush/Cheney took the executive branch's tendency to grasp for illusory power not granted by the Constitution to egregious excess. They were assisted in their illegal operations by the Telcos, in violation of the Constitution and telecommunications law expressly forbidding such conduct.
Now, as the Congress moves to revisit the Patriot Act's sunsetting provisions, we are still left to wonder the extent of Telco lobbying and influence peddling that resulted in the passage of the so-called "immunity" clauses of the FISA Modernization Act. Despite three court orders to make these lobbying documents public, the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before him, refuses to do so. Politicians on both sides of the aisle are complicit, but Obama's betrayal of the people is especially hard to witness.
I'm not trying to force my views upon anyone, but I believe I'm right, and that you are wrong about this warrantless wiretap issue, and the granting of immunity for the violations of the law that are uncontested and acknowlewdged by everyone but you and the champions of the right. If twisters like yourself ran the country, we would have what we have now, government by and for the privileged, bought and paid for by special interests, and rationalized by those of disingenuous intellect.
As to the definition of "ex post facto", let's try the wiki article:
"An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "after the fact") or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. In reference to criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; or it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in at the time it was committed; or it may change or increase the punishment prescribed for a crime, such as by adding new penalties or extending terms; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime more likely than it would have been at the time of the action for which a defendant is prosecuted. Conversely, a form of ex post facto law commonly known as an amnesty law may decriminalize certain acts or alleviate possible punishments (for example by replacing the death sentence with life-long imprisonment) retroactively.
A law may have an ex post facto effect without being technically ex post facto. For example, when a law repeals a previous law, the repealed legislation no longer applies to the situations it once did, even if such situations arose before the law was repealed. The principle of prohibiting the continued application of these kinds of laws is also known as Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali, particularly in European continental systems.
Generally speaking, ex post facto penal laws are seen as a violation of the rule of law as it applies in a free and democratic society. Most common law jurisdictions do not permit retroactive criminal legislation, though in the dissent in Kuhn v. Fairmont Coal Co., 215 U.S. 349, 372 (1910)(Holmes, O., dissenting) Justice Holmes stated that "Judicial decisions have had retrospective operation for near a thousand years" recognizing that a court interpretation of law is retroactive as a new precedent applies to events that occurred prior to the judicial decision. In some nations that follow the Westminster system of government, such as the United Kingdom, ex post facto laws are technically possible as the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy allows Parliament to pass any law it wishes. However, in a nation with an entrenched bill of rights or a written constitution, ex post facto legislation may be prohibited."
From the "not-so-way-back" machine:
"Leading Constitutional Scholars, Civil Rights Organizations, Bar Associations and Reporters' Group Support ACLU Challenge to NSA Warrantless Wiretapping
November 21, 2006
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union today announced the filing of five friend-of-the-court briefs in support of its successful challenge to the National Security Agency's illegal domestic spying program, which the government has appealed. The briefs were submitted on behalf leading constitutional scholars, civil rights organizations, legal experts, bar associations and a reporters' advocacy group.
"All Americans have the right to speak on the phone or send and receive e-mails without the government eavesdropping on their conversations without a warrant," said Ann Beeson, Associate Legal Director of the ACLU. " The broad support for ending this illegal spying program shows just how indefensible the government's position is."
Since 2001, the NSA has been secretly intercepting the phone and e-mail communications of Americans without first obtaining judicial approval. Saying that the Bush administration's illegal spying on Americans must end, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the NSA in January of this year. On August 17, in the first and only ruling by a federal court to strike down the controversial program, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ruled that the warrantless wiretapping program is illegal.
In a brief affirming the landmark ruling, the nation's leading constitutional law scholars, including Kathleen Sullivan, Laurence H. Tribe, Richard Epstein and Ronald Dworkin said: "Whatever inherent powers the President might have under Article II, they do not include the power to conduct a warrantless domestic surveillance campaign, of indefinite duration and unlimited scope, where a duly enacted statute expressly prohibits such conduct. Thus, no separation of powers concern requires deference to the Government's implausible statutory construction. To the contrary, deference to the Government's position would itself cast doubt on the constitutionality of the statute."
In another friend-of-the-court brief, civil rights organizations, including National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Japanese Americans Citizens League, the League of United Latin American Citizens, and United for Peace and Justice pointed to decades of spying on Americans - including members of their organizations - that was halted only after a congressional investigation in the 1970's exposed the abuses. Drawing on their shared history, the groups said that "Intelligence agents misused information gained by such surveillance to 'discredit' ideas and 'neutralize the actions' of Americans engaged in First Amendment-protected speech and advocacy, further distorting the political marketplace of ideas, a marketplace in which the American values of civil rights have historically triumphed."
The brief signed by the New York City Bar Association, the Bar Association of San Francisco, the Los Angeles County Bar Association, the Boston Bar Association and the Beverly Hills Bar Association discussed the importance of confidential communications and trust in the sacred American value of the privileged attorney client relationship. "The NSA surveillance program threatens to undermine a fundamental principle of a just legal system: That justice requires that persons accused by the government of wrongdoing have access to legal advice and that such legal advice can only be effective if lawyer-client communications are conducted in confidence, uninhibited by fears that government agents are listening in," the groups said in their brief.
The fourth brief was filed by the Center for National Security Studies and the Constitution Project and concerns the preservation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. "The Fourth Amendment thus undergirds and reinforces FISA's requirement that the government obtain a warrant in order to engage in foreign intelligence surveillance of persons in the United States. Any concerns potentially counseling against enforcing the warrant requirement in the foreign intelligence realm have been absent for the better part of thirty years, and the threat to individual liberties by an unchecked Executive is, if anything, magnified in the current environment. Accordingly, there is no basis for determining that the President has inherent authority to disregard the warrant requirement enacted by Congress to safeguard the Fourth Amendment rights of persons in the United States."
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed a brief as well, citing concerns that "if any journalist strongly and legitimately suspects that his or her communications with a source are being intercepted by a third party, that journalist simply cannot promise confidentiality in good faith to an international source when that source could face torture or death if the communication is revealed... the program ignores the United States' long-recognized commitment to the free flow of information and disregards the dangers posed to international sources who communicate with the media about issues of national security."
The ACLU lawsuit was filed on behalf of a group of prominent journalists, scholars, attorneys, and national nonprofit organizations (including the ACLU) who frequently communicate by phone and e-mail with people in the Middle East. Because of the nature of their calls and e-mails, they believe the program is disrupting their ability to talk with sources, locate witnesses, conduct scholarship and engage in advocacy. The spying program has sparked national and international furor and has been condemned by lawmakers across the political spectrum.
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Michigan, by Beeson, Jameel Jaffer and Melissa Goodman of the national ACLU and Michael Steinberg of the ACLU of Michigan. The civil rights organizations are represented by Jonathan Hafetz of the Brennan Center for Justice. The constitutional scholars brief was written by Kathleen M. Sullivan and Derek L. Shaffer of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School.
For more information on the lawsuit, including copies of the amicus briefs, the ACLU's legal complaint, fact sheets on the case law and on the NSA spying program, please go to www.aclu.org/nsaspying.
ACLU v. NSA: The Challenge to Illegal Spying
In 2006, in the first federal challenge ever argued against the president's NSA spying program, the ACLU defeated the Bush administration when a district court declared the program unconstitutional. But in July 2007, the 6th Circuit overturned that decision. The ACLU asked the Supreme Court of the United States to consider the ruling, but in February 2008, the Court declined to review the challenge.
> Decision: FISA Court Denies Public Access to Records Concerning Wiretapping (12/11/2007)
It's been nearly two years since we first found out that our own government has been tapping our phones and reading our e-mails. In 2005, the nation learned that President Bush has repeatedly authorized the National Security Agency to monitor the phone calls and emails of people inside the United States, without a warrant and in violation of the Constitution. Authorized days after September 11, 2001, this warrantless wiretapping program is part of a broad pattern of the executive branch using "national security" as an excuse for encroaching on the privacy and free speech rights of Americans without adequate oversight.
The ACLU won the first round of its legal challenge in August 2006, when U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled the NSA program violates the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in her ACLU v. NSA decision. "It was never the intent of the Framers to give the President such unfettered control," Taylor wrote in the decision, "particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights."
After this initial victory, the ACLU returned to court on January 31, 2007, where the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments from both sides. Despite the Bush administration's January announcement that wiretapping warrants are now subject to FISA court approval, the president is still claiming the "inherent authority" to engage in warrantless eavesdropping - even his own attorneys acknowledged that nothing would stop him from resuming warrantless surveillance at any time. Then ACLU Associate Legal Director Ann Beeson urged the court to exercise its proper authority and require the president to follow the law.
In July 2007, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case, ruling the plaintiffs in the case - which includes scholars, journalists, and national nonprofit organizations - had no standing to sue because they could not state with certainty that they have been wiretapped by the NSA.
The decision "insulates the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance activities from judicial review and deprives Americans of any ability to challenge the illegal surveillance of their telephone calls and e-mails," said ACLU Legal Director Steve Shapiro. He added the ruling "did not uphold the legality of the government's warrantless surveillance activity. Indeed, the only judge to discuss the merits clearly and unequivocally declared that the warrantless surveillance was unlawful."
Because the appeals court refused to rule on the legality of the program, Americans were denied the chance to contest the warrantless surveillance of their telephone calls and e-mails. In October 2007, the ACLU appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court declined the case in February 2008.
In August 2007, following the passage of the so-called Protect America Act - a law that vastly expands the Bush administration's authority to conduct warrantless wiretapping of Americans' international phone calls and emails - the ACLU filed a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for court orders and legal papers pertaining to the government's authority to secretly wiretap Americans.
In December 2007 the FISC ruled that, despite the fact that release of the orders would inform the public about the government's surveillance powers, the court would not conduct a review to determine whether the legal rulings were properly determined to be classified.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has asked the Bush Administration no less than nine times for information about the NSA's illegal spying. On June 27, 2007, the Senate Judiciary Committee issued subpoenas to the White House, Vice President and the Justice Department for documents about this warrantless surveillance program. After missing a second deadline in August, Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) declared he would move towards holding the adminstration in contempt. In October, after nearly four months without meaningful reply, the ACLU once again asked the Committee to go forward with contempt proceedings against White House officials for refusing to cooperate with the subpoenas and reminded Congress of its constitutional authority to do so.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), born after the Watergate scandal, establishes how the government can secretly eavesdrop on Americans in their own country in intelligence investigations. It was originally passed to allow the government to collect foreign intelligence information involving communications with "agents of foreign powers."
On July 10, 2008, President Bush signed the unconstitutional FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (FAA), supposedly aimed at “updating” the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Unfortunately, the law meant to “update” FISA instead gutted the original law by eviscerating the role of the judicial oversight in government surveillance. The law also gave sweeping immunity to the telecommunications companies that aided the Bush administration’s unconstitutional warrantless wiretapping program by handing over access to our communications without a warrant. On the same day the FAA was signed into law, the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality.
This is not the first time that Congress has undermined FISA. The USA Patriot Act, passed in 2001 and re-authorized in 2006, amended FISA to make it easier for the government to obtain the personal records of ordinary Americans from libraries and Internet Service Providers, even when they are not suspected of having connections to terrorism.
Congressional leadership has promised to address the issues surrounding the FISA Amendments Act before it sunsets in 2012 during the 2009 debate over reauthorization of USA Patriot Act provisions. Until then, the ACLU will fight in the courts to block the law from taking effect.
More information about the ACLU’s lawsuit to block the FAA is available online at: www.aclu.org/faa" | |
| | | | | | | | | |
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
·Verizon FIOS
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
·BroadVoice
| Re: Won't it be easy to identify them? said by ross :Too long to quote Look, the bottom line is everything that happened was done within the current (and fully legal) framework of the law. This is a fact that you (nor anyone else) can argue, regardless of how you "feel about it". You are certainly entitled to disagree, however that alone wont change the law. Finally, you bring up the ACLU as your closing argument. Unfortunately, that meddling group of criminals only hurts your chances of winning favor with most people. While you might point to them and say "Hey look, my point has merit because the ACLU agrees!" you need to keep in mind these are the same people who argue for the "rights" of child rapists to be allowed to interact with children. Additionally, the ACLU is also the vile group looking to attribute the same rights you and I enjoy (as AMERICAN CITIZENS) to the terrorists in Camp Gitmo.
--
"If it's to be a bloodbath, let it be now. Appeasement is not the answer."
-Ronald Reagan-
»www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html
| |
| | | | | | | | | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| Re: Won't it be easy to identify them? said by wifi4milez :Look, the bottom line is everything that happened was done within the current (and fully legal) framework of the law. This is a fact that you (nor anyone else) can argue, regardless of how you "feel about it". You are certainly entitled to disagree, however that alone wont change the law. Sorry, but the actions taken by the president and the Telcos to conduct warrantless wiretapping and other violations of American's civil rights were clearly illegal! The evidence of malfeasance remains secret, but the fact of its illegality is confirmed by the desperate and frantic rush to exonerate the Telcos from their criminal role in aiding and abetting the Bush administration in the wholesale revocation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. said by wifi4milez :Finally, you bring up the ACLU as your closing argument. Unfortunately, that meddling group of criminals only hurts your chances of winning favor with most people. While you might point to them and say "Hey look, my point has merit because the ACLU agrees!" you need to keep in mind these are the same people who argue for the "rights" of child rapists to be allowed to interact with children. Additionally, the ACLU is also the vile group looking to attribute the same rights you and I enjoy (as AMERICAN CITIZENS) to the terrorists in Camp Gitmo. ACLU = Criminals? You are delusional. Your use of "most people" is really a slur, unless you meant/referred to "most people" like yourself; i.e., evangelical right-wing neocon fascist fanatics. What terrorists at "Camp Gitmo"? What a quaint term, by the way, for a prison. You make it sound like a summer camp in the Adirondacks. As far as I know, few have been charged with any recognized official crime, and none convicted of any, except those few who confessed to warring against the United States after being tortured for two to five years. Furthermore, the United States, holding these prisoners on American soil (Gitmo is, after all, an extension of U.S. territory, much like any other foreign embassy or military post) has a duty to provide access to our federal court system for all accused. But wait, that's right, few have been accused of anything other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time... the rest are just under suspicion?
The United States has the legal and moral obligation to provide these prisoners with humane treatment, access to counsel, and the right to challenge any evidence and their accusers in a proper court of law; i.e., NOT some kangaroo court of the military's devise using coerced (read; result of torture) confessions, and/or secret "evidence", and/or secret "witnesses". If the prisoners at Guantanamo are truly guilty of some alleged offense, why not try them in an actual court with access to all the trappings of justice for both accuser and accused? What are you, and others of your ilk, so afraid of? As for me, I trust in the justice system to extent it is open and transparent. When the access to the courts is curtailed or prohibited, I can only conclude there is a nefarious skulduggery afoot which seeks to protect the abusers of power from retribution for their excesses in persecuting the innocent. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
·Verizon FIOS
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
·BroadVoice
| Re: Won't it be easy to identify them? said by ross :Sorry, but the actions taken by the president and the Telcos to conduct warrantless wiretapping and other violations of American's civil rights were clearly illegal! Clearly illegal according to what law?
said by ross :Your use of "most people" is really a slur Yes, by "most people" I am referring to main stream Americans. The kind of people who hate the ACLU dont think that men have a legal right to rape young boys (NAMBLA), or that illegal enemy combatants should be given the rights of a US citizen in a civilian court.
said by ross :What terrorists at "Camp Gitmo"? What a quaint term, by the way, for a prison. You make it sound like a summer camp in the Adirondacks. Its closer to a summer camp than most of the prisons in the United States, and I think that is a disgrace. These people should be hung upside down by their toenails for 23 hours a day, yet instead they romp around playing soccer and being fed 'politically correct' meals. Worse yet, many of those that are (due to liberal prodding) released from Gitmo most end up being re-arrested after committing another act of terror. I have said it before and I will say it again; we need some KGB style tactics employed at Gitmo to soften the vile terrorists up. Only then will we actually be protecting this country.Appeasing the enemy is tantamount to giving up.
--
God bless America, God bless our troops, and God help us destroy the Islamic terrorists.
»www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html
| |
| | | | | | | | | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
1 edit | Re: Won't it be easy to identify them? said by wifi4milez :Clearly illegal according to what law? Yes, by "most people" I am referring to main stream Americans. The kind of people who hate the ACLU dont think that men have a legal right to rape young boys (NAMBLA), or that illegal enemy combatants should be given the rights of a US citizen in a civilian court. Its (sic, Gitmo) closer to a summer camp than most of the prisons in the United States, and I think that is a disgrace. These people should be hung upside down by their toenails for 23 hours a day, yet instead they romp around playing soccer and being fed 'politically correct' meals. Worse yet, many of those that are (due to liberal prodding) released from Gitmo most end up being re-arrested after committing another act of terror. I have said it before and I will say it again; we need some KGB style tactics employed at Gitmo to soften the vile terrorists up. Only then will we actually be protecting this country.Appeasing the enemy is tantamount to giving up. I've been waiting for someone to post this for two days. Since no one else here has done so, I will. Start here, then read the PDFs posted above
»www.techdirt.com/articles/200911···37.shtml
Mon, Nov 16th 2009 8:32am
Bush Administration Was Afraid It Would Have To Admit Telcos Helped With Warrantless Wiretaps To Get Immunity
from the why-would-they-want-immunity-otherwise dept
by Mike Masnick
"With the EFF finally successful in getting the federal gov't to hand over some lobbying documents involved in the process of granting telcos total immunity in lawsuits over warrantless wiretapping, the press is starting to go through the documents. Wired digs in and finds that the Bush administration was worried it would have to admit that the telcos had actually broken the law in order to get immunity -- but were able to route around that by having the Attorney General "submit a certification to the district court that the carrier defendant either did not provide the assistance as alleged, or did so in connection with a counter-terrorism program authorized by the president and pursuant to written assurances of legality." In other words, by doing a "this" OR "that," they could claim some sort of plausible deniability for the gullible.
Of course, the whole thing is silly. Why would the telcos need immunity if they hadn't broken the law? The only reason to push for immunity was because they obviously had broken the law. The entire push for immunity was never really about protecting the telcos, but about protecting the federal government from having to admit that it clearly broke the law as stated concerning oversight of wiretaps.
The other interesting element in the Wired report is that the Bush administration was worried that future administrations would reverse the immunity -- something it doesn't seem to have to worry about considering that the Obama administration has happily continued to hold the same position on warrantless wiretaps. However, the administration was unable to get anything put in the bill that would prevent future administrations from changing the immunity -- so, perhaps there's still some hope."
»tinyurl.com/ybj9b3u
"The ACLU contends those blanket powers to grab international communications of Americans
without specific court orders violate the Fourth Amendment and would stymie journalists who
often speak to confidential sources outside the country.
Plaintiff Naomi Klein, the liberal columnist and author, said the surveillance would
compromise her writing about international issues.
"If the U.S. government is given unchecked surveillance power to monitor reporters’
confidential sources, my ability to do this work will be seriously compromised," Klein
said.
Longtime foreign correspondent Christopher Hedges admits that surveillance is not a new
obstacle for journalists, but says this goes a step too far.
"There is a lot of monitoring that goes on especially when you are overseas," Hedges said.
"But this creates a further erosion in my ability to work as a journalist."
The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Thursday,
asks the judge to stay the implementation of the new powers, until its constitutionality is
determined.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has spearheaded the still ongoing lawsuits
against the nation’s telecoms, will challenge the provision of the bill that gives
retroactive amnesty to telecoms that are being sued for helping the government spy on
Americans without warrants.
They argue that Congress’s attempt to have citizen lawsuits dismissed violates the
separation of powers.
But the San Francisco-based online rights group also announced in a fund-raising letter on
Thursday that it would also challenge the constitutionality of the bill’s expanded spying
powers.
"We are also preparing a new case against the government for its warrantless wiretapping,
past, present and future," said EFF senior staff attorney Kevin Bankston, who said the
details were being withheld to keep the element of surprise.
"But suffice to say it will be quite different from the other cases against the government
that have been filed so far," Bankston said. "Like with our case against AT&T, however, the
ultimate goal will be the same: to halt the mass interception of Americans’ communications
and to dismantle the dragnet spying network that was first exposed by our witness, AT&T
whistleblower Mark Klein."" | |
| | | | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: Won't it be easy to identify them? said by ross :"Bush Administration Was Afraid It Would Have To Admit Telcos Helped With Warrantless Wiretaps To Get Immunity from the why-would-they-want-immunity-otherwise dept" by Mike Masnick See my comments in the Monday Evening Links when this story was first reported.
I'd like to know your thoughts.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
2 edits | Re: Won't it be easy to identify them? said by amigo_boy :said by ross :"Bush Administration Was Afraid It Would Have To Admit Telcos Helped With Warrantless Wiretaps To Get Immunity from the why-would-they-want-immunity-otherwise dept" by Mike Masnick See my comments in the Monday Evening Links when this story was first reported. I'd like to know your thoughts. Mark My thought is you are completely wrong, i.e., full of shit.
"Only Yoo: Report Details Bush White House Use Of Hand-Picked DOJ Lawyer To Justify Warrantless Wiretapping
By Zachary Roth - July 14, 2009, 4:03PM
The fact that John Yoo was the only Justice Department OLC official who was "read into" the surveillance program -- even though he wasn't the head of OLC at the time -- has already been noted by others looking through the inspectors general report on the program released last week.
But one excerpt from the report is worth paying particular attention to, since it underlines the special role that Yoo came to play on the White House's behalf.
Referring to Jay Bybee, who ran OLC at the time and therefore was Yoo's supervisor, the report says:
Bybee described Yoo as "articulate and brilliant" and said he had a "golden resume" and was "very well connected" with officials in the White House. Bybee said that from these connections, in addition to Yoo's scholarship in the area of executive authority during wartime, it was not surprising that Yoo "became the White House's guy" on national security matters.
Still, that doesn't mean it didn't rankle Bybee that Yoo went behind his back. From the report:
Bybee told us that he was "surprised" and "a little disappointed" to learn through media accounts that Yoo had worked on the PSP without Bybee's knowledge.
Where was the Attorney General here? The report states:
The DOJ OIG was also unable to determine whether Attorney General Ashcroft was fully aware of the advice Yoo was providing directly to the White House about the PSP.
That's because Ashcroft wouldn't talk to the report's authors.
Of course, as the report later notes:
Deficiencies in Yoo's memorandum identified by his successors in the Office of Legal Counsel and Office of the Deputy Attorney General later became critical to DOJ's decision to reassess the legality of the program in 2003.
So there you have it. We pretty much knew this story already: the White House used Yoo as its hand-picked provider of a legal rationale for the program, going behind the back of Yoo's supervisor and perhaps even of the Attorney General himself. But Yoo's reasoning was so shoddy and designed to give the White House what it was looking for -- just as occurred on torture -- that it was later substantially reassessed by his more critical-minded successors at OLC.
And as a final note, the report offers evidence that, when DOJ later developed some spine and, thanks to concerns about the program's legality, refused to sign off on the reauthorization that the White House was seeking, it was Dick Cheney who suggested simply ignoring DOJ.
The report describes a meeting of White House officials:
It was then explained to the group that [Deputy Attorney General James] Comey "has problems" with some activities authorized under the program. Mueller's notes state that Cheney suggested that "the president may have to reauthorize without the blessing of DOJ."
And sure enough, that's exactly what happened, nearly prompting much of the Justice Department's leadership to resign."
---------------
"Bush Personally Sent Card And Gonzo To Ashcroft's Hospital Bed
By Zachary Roth - July 10, 2009, 5:47PM
This great catch by Marcy Wheeler might be the most shocking nugget of all from the IGs report on surveillance.
The report goes into some detail about that famous visit made by Andy Card and Alberto Gonzales to then-AG John Ashcroft, when Ashcroft was in the hospital, and essentially incapacitated, after gall bladder surgery. The White House needed the Attorney General's sign-off to continue its warrantless wiretapping program.
For years, there's been a mystery about who called the hospital and informed Ashcroft's wife, over her objections, that Card and Gonzo would be coming to see the AG. And it looks like the answer is the president himself.
From the report:
According to notes from Ashcroft's FBI security detail, at 6:20 p.m. that evening Card called the hospital and spoke with an agent in Ashcroft's security detail, advising him that President Bush would be calling shortly to speak with Ashcroft. Ashcroft's wife told the agent that Ashcroft would not accept the call. Ten minutes later, the agent called Ashcroft's Chief of Staff David Ayres at DOJ to request that Ayres speak with Card about the President's intention to call Ashcroft. The agent conveyed to Ayres Mrs. Ashcroft's desire that no calls be made to Ashcroft for another day or two. However, at 6:45 p.m., Card and the President called the hospital and, according to the agent's notes, "insisted on speaking [with Attorney General Ashcroft]." According to the agent's notes, Mrs. Ashcroft took the call from Card and the President and was informed that Gonzales and Card were coming to the hospital to see Ashcroft regarding a matter involving national security. (our itals)
In other words, President Bush, apparently knowing that Ashcroft's wife did not want him seeing visitors or even speaking on the phone, nonetheless informed her that his staff would be coming to the hospital to get the sign-off they needed.
The passage essentially confirms a report from last year by Murray Waas in The Atlantic that Gonzo had told investigators that it was indeed President Bush who directed him to Ashcroft's bedside. And the president's call itself was first reported by Barton Gellman in his 2008 book Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency.
Of course, in Ashcroft's finest moment, Card and Gonzales were unsuccessful. But they would soon find ways to get around the problem."
--------------
"Dodd, Leahy, Feingold, and Merkley Announce Bill to Repeal Retroactive Immunity
September 28, 2009
Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Russ Feingold (D-WI), and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) announced today that they will introduce the Retroactive Immunity Repeal Act, which eliminates retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that allegedly participated in President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program.
“I believe we best defend America when we also defend its founding principles,” said Dodd. “We make our nation safer when we eliminate the false choice between liberty and security. But by granting retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies who may have participated in warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, the Congress violated the protection of our citizen’s privacy and due process right and we must not allow that to stand.”
Senator Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said, “Last year, I opposed legislation that stripped Americans of their right to seek accountability for the Bush administration’s decision to illegally wiretap American citizens without a warrant. Today, I am pleased to join Senator Dodd to introduce the Retroactive Immunity Repeal Act. We can strengthen national security while protecting Americans’ privacy and civil liberties. Restoring Americans’ access to the courts is the first step toward bringing some measure of accountability for the Bush-Cheney administration’s decision to conduct warrantless surveillance in violation of our laws.”
“Granting retroactive immunity to companies that went along with the illegal warrantless wiretapping program was unjustified and undermined the rule of law,” Feingold said. “Congress should not have short-circuited the courts’ constitutional role in assessing the legality of the program. This bill is about ensuring that the law is followed and providing accountability for the American people.”
“During the previous administration, telecommunications companies were granted retroactive immunity for violating the rights and privacy of millions of Americans,” said Merkley. “I am proud to join Senator Dodd and co-sponsor the Retroactive Immunity Repeal Act to help restore accountability and increase oversight to protect the privacy rights that have been central to our nation since its inception.”
Over the last two years, Senators Dodd, Leahy, and Feingold have led the fight against granting retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies. However, last July, Congress passed FISA legislation that granted retroactive immunity over the objections of the Senators and others.
This bill seeks to reverse the mistake of the last Congress and repeal the retroactive immunity provisions. The Senators strongly believe that the courts, and neither Congress nor the Administration, should be the ones to determine whether these corporations violated the law and rights of Americans and whether or not they should be held accountable." | |
| | | | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: Won't it be easy to identify them? said by ross :said by amigo_boy :said by ross :"Bush Administration Was Afraid It Would Have To Admit Telcos Helped With Warrantless Wiretaps To Get Immunity from the why-would-they-want-immunity-otherwise dept" by Mike Masnick See my comments in the Monday Evening Links when this story was first reported. I'd like to know your thoughts. Mark My thought is you are completely wrong, i.e., full of sh*t. Maybe you could summarize the voluminous articles into your own thoughts about how they contradict the argument I made in the above-linked posting?
Frankly, I'm at a loss as to what you believe article after article proves.
1. It's no wonder that President Bush didn't want immunity when he didn't feel the telcos broke the law (which 18 USC 2511 represents).
2. Immunity didn't occur in actuality when 18 USC 2511 was the basis for it.
3. The rush job against AG Ashcroft doesn't prove anything except that Ashcroft disagreed with the President, and was replaced a year later.
The Executive branch's inherent power to conduct surveillance is not dependent upon the approval of an Executive appointee. It is a power which resides in the office itself.
However, 18 USC 2511 says telcos are immune from civil suit if the AG certified no warrant is necessary. That's why I believe the so-called "immunity" law came about: to fast-track the judicial discovery process of 18 USC 2511, and avoid the legal question of whether the reference to the AG should be interpreted as literal, or a recognition of the broader recognition of power residing with the Executive branch. It avoided a constitutional crisis, with President Bush invoking the states-secrets defense, and the court saying it was not applicable because the Administration had already discussed the program publicly (Sunday morning news programs, etc.).
I'm open to considering your reasoned responses. But, regurgitating reams of news articles (instead of linking to them, and offering your analysis) is just typical Ross-style bluster.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| Re: Won't it be easy to identify them? said by amigo_boy :Maybe you could summarize the voluminous articles into your own thoughts about how they contradict the argument I made in the above-linked posting? Frankly, I'm at a loss as to what you believe article after article proves. 1. It's no wonder that President Bush didn't want immunity when he didn't feel the telcos broke the law (which 18 USC 2511 represents). 2. Immunity didn't occur in actuality when 18 USC 2511 was the basis for it. 3. The rush job against AG Ashcroft doesn't prove anything except that Ashcroft disagreed with the President, and was replaced a year later. The Executive branch's inherent power to conduct surveillance is not dependent upon the approval of an Executive appointee. It is a power which resides in the office itself. However, 18 USC 2511 says telcos are immune from civil suit if the AG certified no warrant is necessary. That's why I believe the so-called "immunity" law came about: to fast-track the judicial discovery process of 18 USC 2511, and avoid the legal question of whether the reference to the AG should be interpreted as literal, or a recognition of the broader recognition of power residing with the Executive branch. It avoided a constitutional crisis, with President Bush invoking the states-secrets defense, and the court saying it was not applicable because the Administration had already discussed the program publicly (Sunday morning news programs, etc.). I'm open to considering your reasoned responses. But, regurgitating reams of news articles (instead of linking to them, and offering your analysis) is just typical Ross-style bluster. Mark I suggest you read the above court opinion ruling the TSP and warrantless wiretapping illegal. The judge does a very good job specifying the reasons the TSP/PSP warrantless wiretapping program was/remains illegal. I want people to READ the articles so, in addition to linking to them, I posted their content. You got a problem with reading? Perhaps, you do.
My analysis is the warrantless wiretapping program begun under G.W. Bush and continuing under Barack Obama, was, and remains, illegal. It is a blatant flaunting of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, a wholesale violation of the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and of the law re disclosure of private communications by telecommunications companies without a warrant. The Telcos violated the law, period. It does not matter the president and/or the DOJ, acting illegally and outside the authority of office, authorized the Telcos to violate the law. The president's actions and the actions of the Telcos were/are illegal. Obama's use of the FISA court, as amended and enlarged, only lends an air of legitimacy to an ongoing and abhorent violation of our constitutional rights as citizens. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
1 edit | Re: Won't it be easy to identify them? said by ross :I suggest you read the above court opinion ruling the TSP and warrantless wiretapping illegal. I could find nothing in the reams of news articles which you posted to support that assertion.
I believe that's why you posted reams of news articles instead of your own analysis backed by sources. Something to do with baffling with BS...
said by ross :My analysis is the warrantless wiretapping program begun under G.W. Bush and continuing under Barack Obama, was, and remains, illegal. That's easy to say when you don't have to address how 18 USC 2511 recognizes an Executive power to conduct surveillance outside FISA.
And, how Congress recognized that previous attempts to legislate surveillance could go too far, treading upon the Executive's inherent power (resulting in their law being unconstitutional).
And, how Congress amended FISA to better accommodate the President's claimed needs, which he had to exercise under his own office's inherent powers.
And, how Congress used 18 USC 2511 as the basis for so-called "immunity" for actions which occurred between 9/11 and FISA's reform.
It sounds like you're saying "it's illegal because I say so. And, if you don't believe me, read all these news articles that I think say what I think they should say. So there!"
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| Re: Won't it be easy to identify them? said by amigo_boy :said by ross :I suggest you read the above court opinion ruling the TSP and warrantless wiretapping illegal. I could find nothing in the reams of news articles which you posted to support that assertion. That's easy to say when you don't have to address how 18 USC 2511 recognizes an Executive power to conduct surveillance outside FISA. And, how Congress recognized that previous attempts to legislate surveillance could go too far, treading upon the Executive's inherent power (resulting in their law being unconstitutional). And, how Congress amended FISA to better accommodate the President's claimed needs, which he had to exercise under his own office's inherent powers. And, how Congress used 18 USC 2511 as the basis for so-called "immunity" for actions which occurred between 9/11 and FISA's reform. It sounds like you're saying "it's illegal because I say so. And, if you don't believe me, read all these news articles that I think say what I think they should say. So there!" Mark Nope, I am saying you should read the careful analysis of the court re the "inherent powers" of the president, the declaration by the court the president over-reached his constitutional authority, the limitations of 18 USC 2511, including the failure of that section to exonerate the president's actions, and the declaration by the court that the PSP (President's Surveillance Program) of warrantless wiretapping was/is unconstitutional.
Try again... | |
| | | | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: Won't it be easy to identify them? said by ross :I am saying you should read the careful analysis of the court re the "inherent powers" of the president, the declaration by the court the president over-reached his constitutional authority, the limitations of 18 USC 2511, including the failure of that section to exonerate the president's actions, and the declaration by the court that the PSP (President's Surveillance Program) of warrantless wiretapping was/is unconstitutional. Can you quote the relevant part of the article? I honestly didn't see anything saying what you say it did.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | |
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
·Verizon FIOS
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
·BroadVoice
| said by ross :said by wifi4milez :Clearly illegal according to what law? Yes, by "most people" I am referring to main stream Americans. The kind of people who hate the ACLU dont think that men have a legal right to rape young boys (NAMBLA), or that illegal enemy combatants should be given the rights of a US citizen in a civilian court. Its (sic, Gitmo) closer to a summer camp than most of the prisons in the United States, and I think that is a disgrace. These people should be hung upside down by their toenails for 23 hours a day, yet instead they romp around playing soccer and being fed 'politically correct' meals. Worse yet, many of those that are (due to liberal prodding) released from Gitmo most end up being re-arrested after committing another act of terror. I have said it before and I will say it again; we need some KGB style tactics employed at Gitmo to soften the vile terrorists up. Only then will we actually be protecting this country.Appeasing the enemy is tantamount to giving up. I've been waiting for someone to post this for two days. Since no one else here has done so, I will. So by your account, if the ACLU (a vile organization bent on ruining this country) or the EFF attempt to file a law suit then that means the action was against the law?? I must say that is a horribly twisted view of reality. Thankfully however, you are alone in your belief.
--
God bless America, God bless our troops, and God help us destroy the Islamic terrorists.
»www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html
| |
| | | | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: Won't it be easy to identify them? said by wifi4milez :So by your account, if the ACLU (a vile organization bent on ruining this country) ... I know you addressed that to Ross, but FWIW, even though I'm supportive of expanded surveillance, I don't feel the ACLU is as bad as you color them.
Regarding your reference to ACLU fighting for the rights of "enemy combatants," President Bush created this problem. He didn't want them to officially be prisoners of war, subject to Geneva Conventions (and US officials subject to allegations of "war crimes" due to torture). If "detainees" aren't classed that way, then there isn't many more choices about how to classify them, and the rights they have.
IMO, Bush wanted it both ways. He wanted them tried by military law. But, didn't want international accords to apply. Neither did he want US accords to apply either. So, they concocted terms like "detainee" instead of "prisoner," and "enemy combatant" instead of "prisoner of war."
The terms which the Bush administration invented have no legal meaning. I sympathize with their quandary. There is no state actor (i.e., a declared war). But, it's also clear that this is something more than the average crime committed on US soil.
I don't think it's fair to blame the ACLU for pressing this issue. If there's a need to create a new legal definition somewhere between prisoner of war and common criminal (tried in US courts), Congress should define it. What's happening now, without any legislative basis (or judicial oversight) could be abused.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
See 19 replies to this post | |
| | | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by ross :said by wifi4milez :Look, the bottom line is everything that happened was done within the current (and fully legal) framework of the law. This is a fact that you (nor anyone else) can argue, regardless of how you "feel about it". You are certainly entitled to disagree, however that alone wont change the law. Sorry, but the actions taken by the president and the Telcos to conduct warrantless wiretapping and other violations of American's civil rights were clearly illegal! Obviously the surveillance wasn't "illegal." 18 USC 2511 explicitly exempts telcos from legal action if the Executive branch "certifies" no warrant is necessary. That clause is in an "or" condition with the preceeding clause which says FISA must have been complied with (meaning it's not dependent upon FISA).
The Congressional record shows that Congress feared that it's legislation may be unconstitutional if it restricted the Executive branch too much. 18 USC 2511 is an example of that.
Finally, if that wasn't enough Congressional intent, Congress used 18 USC 2511 as the criteria for so-called "immunity." They limited "immunity" to the period before FISA was amended to better accommodate the Executive's requirements, and bring the Executive's surveillance within FISA's framework.
In essence they used the existing law which grants immunity to telcos, and fast-tracked the judicial determination of whether 18 USC 2511's "certification" requirement had been complied with.
That more than emphasized the Congressional intent already behind 18 USC 2511.
For something to be illegal it has to violate a law. Clearly a law does exist to exempt telcos from legal action, and its congressional intent has been made clear.
Stop crying and start a special interest group to repeal the law if you don't like it. You could have done that before 9/11.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
4 edits | said by ross :Title 18 and the FISA court were both established to define, curtail and contain the excesses of power illegally wielded by the executive branch in previous administrations. I agree. However, legislation which created a legal framework for the Executive branch to conduct surveillance did not (and could not) strip the Executive branch of its inherent power to conduct surveillance in circumstances not provided for by the legislated framework.
I agree with you that this is an imperfect system, creating the opportunity for the Executive to arbitrarily determine what are "new circumstances." But, the presumed benefit of this system of government (and the potential for Constitutional crises) is that it's better than giving exclusive (dictatorial) powers to one branch of government
You apparently believe the dictatorial system exists (that the Legislative branch could legislate away a power held by the Executive branch). That's where you are fundamentally wrong.
Read AG Gonzalez's paper for the congressional history, and how legislators feared that their surveillance legislation would be unconstitutional if they attempted to eliminate the Executive branch's power to conduct surveillance without the approval of the Legislative branch.
said by ross :As to the definition of "ex post facto", ... You're confusing two thoughts. You're right that, literally speaking any law (criminal or civil) is ex post facto if it applies to past activities (regardless of whether it penalizes, or lifts penalties). But, constitutionally, it's always been understood to apply only to criminal law.
From the link you referred to:
Generally speaking, ex post facto penal laws are seen as a violation of the rule of law as it applies in a free and democratic society. Most common law jurisdictions do not permit retroactive criminal legislation, ... -- » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law
A law intended to apply to crimes or events that took place before its passage. The United States Constitution forbids the passage of ex post facto criminal laws, on the principle that it is wrong to punish an act which was not illegal when committed. -- » www.yourdictionary.com/law/ex-post-facto-law
Think about it for a moment. Why would the Executive branch have the power to pardon crimes if affecting all ex post facto events (in the generic sense of the word) were considered an abuse of power by the founders?
I agree with you that so-called immunity was an ex post facto law in the generic sense of the term. But, it did not violate the Constitution's prohibition of ex post facto laws, which were intended to prevent criminalizing previously legal activities. So-called immunity only extended to civil actions, not criminal. And, it only granted relief, not penalty.
Mark | |
| | | | | | 
fatness
subtle
Janitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
·EarthLink
Host:
Earthlink DSL
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help?
Rants, Raves, and ..
| said by woody7 :All they had to do was get a "FISA" court to get an ok, even 72 hours afterwords. How hard is it to do that? It is not hard to do, and the FISA court routinely approves almost every request, even after the fact. There was no problem getting permission to do the wiretapping.
The reason for the expanded surveillance was to grab more government power, pure and simple. And the guise of being impeded in their efforts to stop violent terrorist acts was just the story sold to the public. Millions of people bought that lie, and the government grabbed the power it wanted.
The problem isn't that the government doesn't have enough information on people. It's that various parts of the government have information and won't share it with other parts of the government. In over 8 years that problem hasn't been fixed, despite all the power grabs for more surveillance.
--
"I cannot teach him. The boy has no pants." | |
| | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: Won't it be easy to identify them? said by fatness :said by woody7 :All they had to do was get a "FISA" court to get an ok, even 72 hours afterwords. How hard is it to do that? It is not hard to do, and the FISA court routinely approves almost every request, even after the fact. There was no problem getting permission to do the wiretapping. I don't think anyone (at our level) understands what the activities were which occurred between 9/11 and reform of the Patriot Act (the limited duration of so-called immunity, which was really just a fast-track of 18 USC 2511).
From what I've gathered, it was broader in nature than a simple wiretap on one individual. More like point-to-point analysis to marshal sufficient reasonable suspicion to apply traditional surveillance to specific individuals. The eavesdropped data was more like telephone call records, not actual voice traffic. In this case, they were searching for suspicious patterns of connections.
Or, it could have been more like voice traffic, but at an aggregate level, searching for suspicious patterns of words, causing them to focus traditional surveillance on those individuals.
President Bush insisted that it was sufficiently different from the kind of targeted surveillance which FISA accommodated. It sounds like he was right. Based upon how Congress amended the Patriot Act to better accommodate the President's claimed needs (and how the then-current FISA didn't meet those needs), that tends to validate that the surveillance was sufficiently different (yet necessary).
The fact that Congress extended 18 USC 2511 to that surveillance also tends to validate this premise.
Of course, if you believe it was all a conspiratorial power-grab, coordinated by the President and Congress, Dems and Reps, Bildebergers, and the Illuminati, then none of the above will have much influence on you. 
Mark | |
| | | | | | | |
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
·Verizon FIOS
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
·BroadVoice
| Re: Won't it be easy to identify them? said by amigo_boy :Of course, if you believe it was all a conspiratorial power-grab, coordinated by the President and Congress, Dems and Reps, Bildebergers, and the Illuminati, then none of the above will have much influence on you. Mark I personally think it was a scheme cooked up by the Freemasons and rouge elements within the Knights Templar. 
--
God bless America, God bless our troops, and God help us destroy the Islamic terrorists.
»www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html
| |
| | | | | | | |
fatness
subtle
Janitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
·EarthLink
Host:
Earthlink DSL
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help?
Rants, Raves, and ..
| said by amigo_boy :I don't think anyone (at our level) understands what the activities were which occurred between 9/11 and reform of the Patriot Act Following that statement you proceed with your guesswork, designed to support your opinion that things are OK, and were done for reasons that were truthful, well-explained and well-discussed, and were imposed on citizens by those benevolent ones who know best.
My guesswork is that it was a fear-driven power grab, which didn't address the initial problem of our intelligence agencies not sharing information and treating each other as hostile entities, to the detriment of the country.
--
"I cannot teach him. The boy has no pants." | |
| | | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: Won't it be easy to identify them? said by fatness :said by amigo_boy :I don't think anyone (at our level) understands what the activities were which occurred between 9/11 and reform of the Patriot Act Following that statement you proceed with your guesswork, designed to support your opinion that things are OK, and were done for reasons that were truthful, well-explained and well-discussed, and were imposed on citizens by those benevolent ones who know best. My guesswork is that it was a fear-driven power grab, which didn't address the initial problem of our intelligence agencies not sharing information and treating each other as hostile entities, to the detriment of the country. I would say that my guesswork is in line with a variety of government activities. We don't know all the details of military weaponry development, nor black-ops. Things that could be used against us as citizens.
I don't know anyone who believes we're entitled to know all the details. Nor, that the absence of those details signifies a conspiratorial "power grab."
Most people are ok with a lot of things which can't be divulged to the public, but could misused to the public's harm. What makes the recent challenge of wiretapping (which wasn't accommodated by FISA, and FISA was amended to accommodate it) any different?
Mark | |
| | thevorpal
join:2007-11-16
Alexandria, VA
| said by PapaMidnight :Unless their names are mentioned by acronym only (ATT, VZN, CCS, etc.), won't it be rather easy to identify each individual company simply by character amounts? With luck they will blank out the documents by simply setting the background color to black in a word document.
It's not like they haven't done that in the past. But lets be honest here, I don't even care that they are blanking out the information, because of the market share of these companies, we KNOW who they are even if they are removed.
It's like getting the oval office transcripts from 1973 but they remove the name of the president. Gee who could it be. | |
| | |
See 46 replies to this post | |
NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05 | Status Quo The more things err, "change" the more they stay the same. I guess we can all sit back and "hope" some more.
Welcome to the transparent Obama administration, aka "Bush 2.0: The Rise of the Reich". | |
| | 
TechieZero
Tools Are Using Me
Premium
join:2002-01-25
Wesley Chapel, FL |  Re: Status Quo
| |
| chronoss2009
join:2008-09-23 | lil secret knowledge for yo all the real reason is that they thinking they were never going to have htis public destroyed a lot of the data and this will cause a real stink when its found out...
/waves | |
| joker5656
join:2006-06-23
Dallas, GA | Black Blocks Wounder how much will be blacked out | |
| cyclone_z
join:2006-06-19
Ames, IA
·Qwest.net
| Why do librulz hate Amurka? You guys, this is of the utmost national security importance. We in the U.S. are a leader in political corruption. If this lobbying information gets out, you can kiss that lead goodbye!
What do you think will happen when politicians in other countries become as cheap as ours? | |
| | | |
|
|
What a bleeping waste of time