McCain: Telecoms Need to Apologize For Wiretap ImmunityBells need to earn billion dollar gift with a little stage show... ( old news - 08:58AM Friday May 23 2008) tags: business · privacyTipped by fatness  I've talked at length about how Verizon, AT&T and Sprint have spent billions lobbying Uncle Sam for retro-active legal immunity for their decisions to hand over user data wholesale to the NSA without a warrant (or judicial oversight). Wired reports that Presidential candidate John McCain, who already voted for immunity, would now only support immunity for the telecoms "unless there were revealing Congressional hearings" and "heartfelt repentance." I was under the impression that corporations weren't moral or immoral but amoral, and therefore not specifically capable of emotions like regret. I'm not too sure that Verizon and AT&T lobbyists would have a very rough time faking regret in order to obliterate billions in lawsuits. Likely Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama remains opposed to telecom immunity. Of course none of this matters if immunity is granted sometime during Bush's final term. The latest Republican effort to get what they want is explored by the Associated Press: A months-long logjam over a new government surveillance bill may be coming to an end, with Republicans offering a compromise that would let people who think they were illegally spied on by the government have their day in court — albeit a secret one. However the ACLU says the new proposal isn't any better than the original bill passed by the Senate that delivers immunity, and essentially delivers telecoms the same gift: an easy way of killing these lawsuits. The FISA court is still not empowered to determine whether the warrantless wiretapping program was legal_ just whether the attorney general sent a letter to the companies requesting assistance. The compromise "just says that the existence of an order — whether legal or not — is enough to dismiss the cases," said Michelle Richardson, a legislative consultant with the ACLU. And on and on it goes....
Related:- T-Mobile Systems Hacked?
- AT&T Puts New Smiley Face On Privacy Policy
- BitBlinder: Like TOR, But Faster
- Phorm Fighting Tightening Balance Sheet AND Critics
- Cable's 'Canoe' Plan Takes On Water
- Canada Cooks Up Their Own Patriot Act
- ISPs, Marketers Propose Voluntary Privacy Guidelines
- Verizon: Privacy Is Super-Ultra Important To Us
|
 |  | | | 
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL
| Re: So what said by Dogfather :So if they didn't get immunity what happens. A few customers who weren't damaged get a worthless coupon. Bloodsucking scumbag Sen Edwards types get millions. Customer rates go up because corporations don't pay this, customers ultimately do. If the telco broke the law, put those who signed off on it in jail. Otherwise STFU unless you can PROVE some individual was personally damaged by their actions. The dirty laundry gets aired in public. Telcos get the bad publicity they have earned. The citizens, hopefully, learn that Democracy is not a spectator sport. There is some accountability for unprecedented, unconstitutional and illegal actions undertaken by the employees we sent to Washington to watch our house for us.
--
»www.DumbLogic.com | |
| | | lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
| Re: So what Your assumption is that they are guilty, but what if the courts ultimately decide otherwise?
Bad publicity and dirty laundery won't see the light of day when national security is invoked.
What if the president on his last day in office grants a pardon to all the telcos invloved. | |
| | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| Re: So what said by lesopp :What if the president on his last day in office grants a pardon to all the telcos invloved. Presidential pardons don't extend to civil liability. (It's not clear whether a President could pardon a corporation, but it is clear that they can't pardon anyone from civil liability.).
Mark | |
| | | |
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL
| said by lesopp :What if the president on his last day in office grants a pardon to all the telcos invloved. The telcos involved are seeking immunity because they are worried about their liability. There is no danger of a criminal complaint being brought against the traitors while the current thugs are in power.
Besides, you can't really pardon a corporation, just like you can't throw a corporation in jail.
The closest thing to that would be if an officer of the company were to be found guilty if criminal charges were ever pursued, and then the President could pardon the convict....but that's not likely to happen. The prosecution, that is....the pardon is a certainty I'd say if things ever got that far.
But again, the telcos aren't worried about criminal, just the checks they would have to write if customer started sing them for breach of privacy and a whole host of things.
--
»www.DumbLogic.com | |
| | | | 
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
 ·T-Mobile US
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by lesopp :Your assumption is that they are guilty, but what if the courts ultimately decide otherwise? They wouldn't be pushing so strenuously for an immunity bill if they didn't fear liability. They've already admitted that they participated because the White House asked them to (contradicting the law). If they don't get immunity, it's guaranteed that they'll face $billions in law suits.
Bad publicity and dirty laundery won't see the light of day when national security is invoked. It's already been invoked, yet fortunately our government is almost as inefficient at keeping anything secret as they are at wasting our tax money.
The telcos already got bad coverage last year with the small amount of evidence that was broadcast. Without immunity they can't stop the torrent of crap that they unleashed.
What if the president on his last day in office grants a pardon to all the telcos invloved. He can't, hence the immunity request. If the president could pardon an entire company, they wouldn't be wasting their money lobbying and and trying to save their asses. They'd just stick to the president, sit this out, and wait for the pardon.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
| | 
NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX | Yeah but you're talking about people who wont go to jail.
Bush would just pardon them if that happened. They should of held off on Scooter Libby's sentencing until Bush was out of office. | |
| | |
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL
| Re: So what said by NOCMan :Yeah but you're talking about people who wont go to jail. Bush would just pardon them if that happened. They should of held off on Scooter Libby's sentencing until Bush was out of office. Doesn't matter. Step 1 is always a full accounting of events. We can't get to punishment stage until the charges are read out loud in public and the traitors have an opportunity - regardless of the fact that they denied this to others - to mount a defense of their treasonous conduct.
--
»www.DumbLogic.com | |
| | | | 
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| Re: So what Who are the traitors here?
The companies that complyed with a request from their gov't during a time of national crisis, or the s***bags that want to further the mayhem by limiting our governments 1 true obligation to the constitution--- our defense!
And why oh why hasn't Klein been charged, theres the true traitor!
--
"Anything worth having is worth cheating for." WC Fields | |
| | | | |
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL
| Re: So what said by S_engineer :Who are the traitors here? The companies that complyed with a request from their gov't during a time of national crisis, or the s***bags that want to further the mayhem by limiting our governments 1 true obligation to the constitution--- our defense! And why oh why hasn't Klein been charged, theres the true traitor! There is no "crisis". I'd say that the constitution is a little bit more complex than just "defense". And speaking out for your beliefs, in the face of all sorts of odds, makes you a hero not a traitor.
--
»www.DumbLogic.com | |
| | | | | |
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| Re: So what said by kapil :said by S_engineer :Who are the traitors here? The companies that complyed with a request from their gov't during a time of national crisis, or the s***bags that want to further the mayhem by limiting our governments 1 true obligation to the constitution--- our defense! And why oh why hasn't Klein been charged, theres the true traitor! There is no "crisis". I'd say that the constitution is a little bit more complex than just "defense". And speaking out for your beliefs, in the face of all sorts of odds, makes you a hero not a traitor. So by your logic...Adolph Hitler was a hero with his actions after the Treaty of Versailles? | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| Re: So what So you cite an ambulance chaser trying to establish political correctness rather than argue your own words on merit. The North side must be proud of you.... | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| Re: So what I didn't call Hitler a hero....Kapil did when he said "And speaking out for your beliefs, in the face of all sorts of odds, makes you a hero not a traitor."
I'm sure he also feels Ho Chi Mihn, Pol Pot, The Ayatollah Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini, and Fidel Castro were all heros too when the "faced the odds" | |
| | | | | | | | | | 
jhboricua
ExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN
clubs:
| Re: So what said by S_engineer :I didn't call Hitler a hero....Kapil did when he said "And speaking out for your beliefs, in the face of all sorts of odds, makes you a hero not a traitor." I didn't call the founding fathers traitors and terrorist either... You did when you implied Kapil's statement = Hitler is a hero.
--
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
Jose A. Hernandez * System Admin * MPLS, Minnesota, USA * | |
| | | | | | | | | |
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| Re: So what said by jhboricua :said by S_engineer :I didn't call Hitler a hero....Kapil did when he said "And speaking out for your beliefs, in the face of all sorts of odds, makes you a hero not a traitor." I didn't call the founding fathers traitors and terrorist either... You did when you implied Kapil's statement = Hitler is a hero. Your missing the context of the analogy. His blanket statement "And speaking out for your beliefs, in the face of all sorts of odds, makes you a hero not a traitor" has serious outcomes. By calling this clown Klein a hero after he breached national security shows where his allegiance is. The damage that Klein did was irrevocable on several different fronts, and the fact that he has not been charged treason speaks volumes about the impact that media carries on our national policies.
I took an oath to the constitution as did all of you, I'm sure. My question is, are you trying to defend it or subvert it? | |
| | | | | | | | | |
jhboricua
ExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN
clubs:
1 edit | Re: So what said by S_engineer :Your missing the context of the analogy. You assume I'm missing the context of the analogy. I'm merely making a point to the fallacy of your initial response to kapil.said by S_engineer :His blanket statement "And speaking out for your beliefs, in the face of all sorts of odds, makes you a hero not a traitor" has serious outcomes. No more than your blanket statement about Klein being a traitor for exposing an illegal spying program.said by S_engineer :By calling this clown Klein a hero after he breached national security shows where his allegiance is. Right, because you're either with the Administration or you're a terrorist and traitor.  said by S_engineer :The damage that Klein did was irrevocable on several different fronts, and the fact that he has not been charged treason speaks volumes about the impact that media carries on our national policies. The fact that he hasn't been charged with treason, and that the phone companies are spending billions on lobbying to get immunity speaks even louder about how right his actions were.said by S_engineer :I took an oath to the constitution as did all of you, I'm sure. My question is, are you trying to defend it or subvert it? Does turning a blind eye when the constitution gets bypassed qualifies now as defending it? My, how far we've become.
--
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
Jose A. Hernandez * System Admin * MPLS, Minnesota, USA * | |
| | | | | | | | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by S_engineer :By calling this clown Klein a hero after he breached national security shows where his allegiance is. What I find amusing is that Klein more clearly broke the law than the telcos did(!). Under the same law which grants an exemption for when the AG certifies a warrant isn't necessary (2 a ii B), it says that an employee of the telco who reveals the presence of a wiretap is guilty of the same civil damages that a telco is for releasing data without abiding by the law:
No provider of wire or electronic communication service, officer, employee, or agent thereof, or landlord, custodian, or other specified person shall disclose the existence of any interception or surveillance or the device used to accomplish the interception or surveillance .... Any such disclosure, shall render such person liable for the civil damages provided for in section 2520.
»www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html···00-.html I guess screaming about "illegal" and "broke the law" is situational for self-styled freedom fighters.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | 
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Re: So what Sorry. Exposing an illegal wiretapping program is not breaking the law. The illegal wiretapping program is breaking the law. Your opinion on the matter, while amusing, is simply wrong. | |
| | | | | | | | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: So what said by JakCrow :Sorry. Exposing an illegal wiretapping program is not breaking the law. How would a landlord or employee know whether a warrant wasn't used? Or, that the AG hadn't certified it?
By definition, Klein broke the law simply because he wasn't privy to the details.
Mark | |
| | | | |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
 ·DSL EXTREME
1 edit | said by S_engineer :Who are the traitors here? The companies that complyed with a request from their gov't during a time of national crisis, or the s***bags that want to further the mayhem by limiting our governments 1 true obligation to the constitution--- our defense! And why oh why hasn't Klein been charged, theres the true traitor! The telcos were not presented with warrants. If there were no warrants issued within 72 hours of the request for wiretaps, the wiretaps should have ceased. The requests were illegal without warrants. The current wiretapping laws were sufficient for dealing with the "time of national crisis".
Bush admitted on camera that he authorized these warrrantless wiretaps, which is illegal, violating both the FISA law and the Constitution. It was an admission of guilt. This alone was enough to impeach him, but unfortunately, the republicans in congress were more interested in covering the ass of their team captain than doing their Constitutional duty to uphold the law and keep the administration in check, and the democrats haven't had the balls to do the same since they took control. | |
| | | | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: So what said by JakCrow :The telcos were not presented with warrants. If there were no warrants issued within 72 hours of the request for wiretaps, the wiretaps should have ceased. The requests were illegal without warrants. Wrong. See »Re: Ya Gotta be Kidding Me
Mark | |
| | | | | | |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: So what The Department of Justice conceded that the NSA program was not authorized by any of the provisions in 18 U.S.C. 2511. Using 18 U.S.C. 2511 is something like the 6th excuse for breaking the law with warrantless wiretaps. You guys need to pick one and stick with it. For once. | |
| | | | | | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: So what said by JakCrow :The Department of Justice conceded that the NSA program was not authorized by any of the provisions in 18 U.S.C. 2511. Reference please.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: So what Contrary to your assertion, I see no mention of 2511. Do you have an explanation?
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: So what Actually, you're correct. However, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) is irrelevant, and as already stated, yet another excuse that people, such as yourself, have tried to trot out while running interference for the administration. If this gave Bush and the AG the right to authorize warrantless wiretapping, then there would have been no reason for Gonzolas to make the claim that HJR114 gave Bush all the authorization needed to wiretap without a warrant. Of course, that also ignores all the other excuses used by both the admin and people, such as yourself, while scrambling to cover Bush's ass and try and justify violations of both the FISA law and the Constitution. Of course, the hypocrisy of it all is that if it weren't for the fact the president has an R next to his name, people, such as yourself, would be calling for the president's head on a pole. | |
| | | | | | | | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: So what said by JakCrow :If [2511] gave Bush and the AG the right to authorize warrantless wiretapping, then there would have been no reason for Gonzolas to make the claim that HJR114 gave Bush all the authorization needed to wiretap without a warrant. It's not amazing that the administration would use Joint Resolution 114 (authorizing the President to wage war on terror) as the source of their power *under existing law*. There's nothing in 2511 (or anywhere else, AFAIK) that defines when the AG can certify a warrant isn't necessary.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: So what said by amigo_boy :said by JakCrow :If [2511] gave Bush and the AG the right to authorize warrantless wiretapping, then there would have been no reason for Gonzolas to make the claim that HJR114 gave Bush all the authorization needed to wiretap without a warrant. It's not amazing that the administration would use Joint Resolution 114 (authorizing the President to wage war on terror) as the source of their power *under existing law*. There's nothing in 2511 (or anywhere else, AFAIK) that defines when the AG can certify a warrant isn't necessary. Mark But neither is a good excuse. Bush broke the law by authorizing warrantless wiretapping, and all the excuses team players like you try to continue to use don't change the fact that he broke the law and violated the Constitution. I realize people, such as yourself, think that the team is more important than the good of the country, but still, that's not a good reason. | |
| | 
roc5955
Premium
join:2005-11-26
Rosendale, NY
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by Dogfather :If the telco broke the law, put those who signed off on it in jail. Otherwise STFU unless you can PROVE some individual was personally damaged by their actions. No! If a telco broke the law, the person who authorized them to break the law should go to jail. Civil penalties could be levied, whether or not someone was personally damaged, if intent could be proven.
If this goes to the top of the administration, than let's find out. I am tired of this administration literally getting away with murder.
--
"Understanding is a three-edged sword." | |
| | |
See 14 replies to this post | |
| | |
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL
| said by Dogfather :STFU I will not.
I will stand here and defend my country and try my damnedest to prevent it from turning into a place where the rich rule over the poor, where no one except the ruling elite has rights, where people are disappeared in the middle of the night and stuffed in a far away Gulags for speaking up and expressing free thought without any recourse or right to a public trial.
--
»www.DumbLogic.com | |
| | |
See 10 replies to this post | |
| JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
West Chester, PA
 ·Verizon FIOS
1 edit | said by Dogfather :So if they didn't get immunity what happens. A few customers who weren't damaged get a worthless coupon. Bloodsucking scumbag Sen Edwards types get millions. Customer rates go up because corporations don't pay this, customers ultimately do. If the telco broke the law, put those who signed off on it in jail. Otherwise STFU unless you can PROVE some individual was personally damaged by their actions. So what?! It's a big deal if they don't get it. First off, the telcos agreed to help out because they were assured that what they were doing is legal, and it was for purposes of national security. They were told that what they were doing was above-board.
Second, their service was totally voluntary. What happens the next time some administration goes to any company/industry for this type of assistance in the future? Well, if you're like any company, you probably say 'no'. Why would you open yourself up to ligitation like that? If this litigation is allowed to go forward, what kind of credibility would future administrations have when they go to a company and say 'help us out... don't worry it's totally legal'? If someone who VOTED to grant immunity now turns around, and for political expediency, now makes this kind of statement, why would any company ever take the government's word on this type of stuff in the future?
I find McCain's statement totally baffling here. He KNOWS this will put a chill on future requests for help from the Federal Government. THAT'S why this is a big deal.
Edit - I just reread your original post. I saw a question mark after the 'so what' that wasn't there. I thought you were making the point that this isn't a big deal. My apologies. | |
| | | vicorjh
Premium
join:2007-06-24
Arlington, MA
| Re: So what I think that would be a good thing in regards to putting a chill on future requests.
In my humble opinion, the government should show that their actions are legal and above board if there are any question to the legality of an action. In conflicting instances, the government must legislate laws by and for the people through the regular legislative channels.
For expediency, there are mechanisms already that allow for checks and balances to remain in place while, at the same time, allowing for expedited action. In the interim, legislation may be started to make such actions temporary or permanent legal.
Now that things are "out in the open", the people's voices regarding this matter are being heard by the legislative bodies. This seems correct to me. | |
| | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | It's not the money.
It's being able to use the Courts so that full details of what occurred come out to the light of day.
If they get immunity, we'll never know what went on and how far it went. | |
| | | 
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Re: So what Let that come out in a criminal trial. | |
| | | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: So what said by Dogfather :Let that come out in a criminal trial. If they are given immunity there never will be a criminal trial. I've debated that argument before with people. Since the Government would have to file charges to bring a criminal case, no criminal trial will occur.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | | | |
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
3 edits | Re: So what My mistake then. From what I read, this "immunity" was only protecting the telcos from civil liability and that it didn't grant actual immunity from criminal prosecution. | |
| | | | | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: So what said by Dogfather :My mistake then. From what I read, this "immunity" was only protecting the telcos from civil liability and that it didn't grant actual immunity from criminal prosecution. No, it only provides immunity from civil trials. They could be prosecuted by the Government... However.... since the Government is complicient in the wiretapping, they aren't going to prosecute themselves if you see what I am saying. You won't see the Justice Department investigating and embarrassing the administration for example.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | | | | | | |
See 6 replies to this post | |
| | 
footballdude
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO | Re: FAIL That picture made my day! | |
| 
wakarimasen
@charter.com | Japanese corporations apologize Haven't you seen the Japanese CEOs bowing low and apologizing for poor performance/behaviour? | |
| 
tomkb
Premium
join:2000-11-15
Avon, OH
clubs: | not surprising John McCain More of the Same. | |
| |
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Re: not surprising I'm surprised he stopped pushing Amnesty and selling us out to China long enough to worry about anything else. | |
| | | | 
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME
| pffffttt.... "Re: So what
There are no damages if there was no damage.
Civil penalties for what? No one was damaged.
So then it comes to whether or not there were criminal acts. If there were, instead of giving millions to bloodsucking scum lawyers, those who signed off on it should go to jail."
How do you know there was no damage? You are more motivated by greed than anything else, hence the "there are no damages if there was no damage" You don't want to penalize the Telcos, because it may make someone rich, and cost someone an added burden of paying for it. The "damages" are that your rights may have been violated, said rights that have been hard fought for by generations of men and women. The right to sue, is just that, the right to sue.Because someone makes monetary gain is a separate issue. If there isn't a problem, just let it play out in the courts.a lot of times in the course of lawsuits, a lot of facts that would not normally see the light of day do. If you lose, or abuse a right, isn't that a form of "damage" ? Remember that a majority from both parties are "blood sucking lawyers", it just depends on whose blood they are sucking. How many of you that are so against lawsuits have ever been in the service to your country? (not that I feel that is criteria for be for or against)
--
BlooMe | |
| | 
dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI | Re: pffffttt.... Invasion of privacy is damage. And while you can't subpeonea the government to force them to reveal what they did, you certainly can the companies involved. | |
|
cointelpro
@rr.com
| No Privacy in the U.S. I know that the government and businesses can get hold of any electronic information that is collected on you. They can easily hack into your computer to observe you or install GPS on your car to watch where you drive, medical records, bank, credit report, phone records, hack into your cellphone, internet activity, email, observe your mail, break into your car, on and on. Unfortunately, we don't know about it, because it is not used as evidence in court against you.
The information collection on you can be initiated if you are suing a corporation, protesting the government, or any other reasons. I know this comment will not be anonymous-some low life will attach it to my real name, government/business have me under constant surveillance.
| |
| 
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
·Verizon FIOS
| Retroactive unImmunity quote:
Of course none of this matters if immunity is granted sometime during Bush's final term.
Yeah, but the next president and congress could just deny immunity retroactively to when the immunity was retroactively granted. Of course we would have to have a retroactive court to retroactively sort all this out. Ultimately in the end the American people will retroactively get screwed no matter what the outcome is. | |
| |
nmainer
@cablespeed.com
| Re: Retroactive unImmunity Right on! NO law or regulation of ANY sort should ever be retroactive, period. How can anyone properly conduct one's personal affairs, or business conduct business, or government govern, if there is no "line in the sand"; if all persons and entities (of any sort) are exposed to some indeterminate (and potentially limitless) civil and/or criminal liability at some unknown point anytime in the future. In retroactivity lies grave madness. | |
| expert007
join:2006-01-10
Buffalo, NY
| Ya Gotta be Kidding Me "The companies that complyed with a request from their gov't during a time of national crisis"
What a tool. What sort of bleeding heart crap is that?
There's this thing called "process", not to be mistaken with "process" like that cheese thats in your fridge.
Facts just suck sometimes. | |
| | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
1 edit | Re: Ya Gotta be Kidding Me said by expert007 :There's this thing called "process", not to be mistaken with "process" like that cheese thats in your fridge. Facts just suck sometimes. The law provides for telcos to hand over data to the government with very minimal requirements. 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) permits it merely if the AG certifies that a warrant isn't necessary. U.S.C. 2702(a)(3) & (c) also allows it, and was amended in 2006 to reduce "reasonable belief" of "imminent danger" to merely "good faith belief" of "danger" (not imminent).
We already know from Comey's testimony that AG Ashcroft certified something. »thinkprogress.org/comey-testimony/
And, we already know that Gonzalez (who replaced Ashcroft) felt he could certify it (long article about why FISA permission doesn't apply) »www.usdoj.gov/opa/whitepaperonns···ties.pdf.
That's why most supporters of civil suits openly admit they're just trying to accomplish what they can't through criminal justice. Nothing necessarily wrong with doing that. But, it gets a little tiring to hear assertions about how "it was illegal" or "they broke the law."
Mark | |
| | |
dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
| Re: Ya Gotta be Kidding Me It was illegal and they did break the law. As soon as it came out, the law was ammended. Do you really think the telcos would be pushing for immunity against nothing!? If it was nothing the telcos would be pusing to speed the case up to the Supreme court where it could rule in their favor.
--
dnoyeB
"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. " Ecclesiastes 9:16
| |
| | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: Ya Gotta be Kidding Me said by dnoyeB :It was illegal and they did break the law. As soon as it came out, the law was ammended. Read 2511, it clearly says a warrant isn't necessary if the AG certifies it.
The fact that they amended the law (expanding government powers) goes a long way toward justifying what happened prior to the law being expanded (in the same way the 13th amendment justified Lincoln's freeing of slaves; or the Lend-Lease Act justified Roosevelt's "ships for bases" deal, which violated the Neutrality Act. It shows intent to make it less questionable. I.e., it would be *worse* if the law hadn't been expanded.
said by dnoyeB :Do you really think the telcos would be pushing for immunity against nothing!? If it was nothing the telcos would be pusing to speed the case up to the Supreme court where it could rule in their favor. That's just a form of "if you have nothing to hide, why do you oppose wiretapping? If anything, you'd want the government to have even more access so they could overlook you as a suspect."
It's amusing coming from people who violently oppose that line of reasoning.
Mark | |
| JimF
join:2003-06-15
Allentown, PA
| Why liability at all? Why should the corporations be liable at all? It was the government that was asking for the data. If the corporations thought there was a reasonable legal basis for it, then they shouldn't have to guess what a judge decides later. They should be immune. If there is a mistake, it is the government's fault. | |
| | | |
|
|
ACLU against any compromise
