There is no way that the telecom companies should be held liable for this. It's like suing a demolition company after the government takes your house and hires them to tear it down. That being said, we should be very judicious about when we give immunity. The court system should be able to handle this properly.
No. The telecom companies are beholden to NOT give out wiretaps unless they are approved by the FISA court. They failed in this regard. It would be more like suing a demolition company because they tore down your house simply because the government told them to without any supporting rationale and/or documentation proving it legit. That's a perfectly reasonable motive to sue.
I can't believe you're falling for such a silly diversion. This FISA bill is a steamroller running over our rights and whatever's left of the Constitution. It should be abhorent to anyone who believes in the natural rights of man. The immunity provision is the Jack-in-the-Box ball that sits on top of the antenna of the steamroller. To me, it is literally the least offensive part of this bill.
I don't have a problem with the immunity either, the problem I had was the continuation of the authority of the president to authorize wire tapping. maybe we should try to post a good summary of the bill.
*sigh* I agree with you of course. I was merely replying to your erroneous proclamation that "there is no way that the telecom companies should be held liable for this".
Reading? Why should I do that? I'd much rather make angry, uninformed posts. Let me rephrase: "I don't think, based on my limited knowledge of the facts, that the telecom companies should be held responsible for this. I also do not want to give them immunity, because I think that the justice system can handle it."
"so letting the gov't listen in on phone conversations is the same crime as exterminating jews? hmmmmmmm." With all due respect, what crap! He isn't saying it's the same crime at all. He's saying that you can't use the excuse that you were "just following orders" when you commit a crime. And what you fail to realize is that the White House committed felonies, unconstitutional felonies, and the telecoms did as well, by going along with it, and by granting this immunity, Obama and the others who voted for this travesty are insuring that the details of this criminal act will never become public and that those who were responsible will walk. It's outrageous. All Obama had to do was vote no or not vote at all. I am at a loss to understand his actions, which have weakened the 4th amendment of the Constitution. you know... the document that governs and protects us all. Ever heard of it? Impeach Bush/Cheney.
If one of the persons is a non-U.S. citizen, the 4th amendment doesn't protect their conversation with a U.S. citizen. This has been ruled in the court of law many times. Thus Bush's program actually doesn't violate the 4th Amendment. In fact, you can conduct searches of non-U.S. citizens on non-U.S. soil - that's perfectly legal. The supreme court has ruled that 4th amendment protections don't apply to non-u.s. citizens outside the u.s., and the circuit courts have said the same about foreign entities / powers / or their agents within the u.s. so really - while i don't like the program, I don't think it's destroying our constitutional rights. it can only be applied in very specific circumstances, and now they are adding court oversight so that should address concerns as well. what's really the problem here? i mean, you don't need a warrant to search someone if you have probably cause or even in some cases without it. you can be searched at an airport for instance.... i think so long as their is probably cause that one of the conversationalists is a suspected agent of Al Qaeda then a warrant doesn't need to be obtained to listen into a conversation, however without a warrant the evidence should be inadmissable in a court of law and divulging that information publically should be deemed a criminal act.
how do you feel about the guys at Guantanamo Bay, not trying to be a jerk I would really like to know. to me its a similar situation
good thing about apathetic voters (roughly the 140 to 160 millions who won't be voting next week and in November)...I guess that means those votes could go to imaginary people, hypothetically ... hypothetically... If that imaginary person actually made into the office by default of votes, since most people in that county, town, city, state, or nation might fail to vote for any of Dems or Reps and even third parties... just plain not give a **** Could that imaginary person possibly do as much damage as some of the other more popular and beloved Reps...Dems....and other abominations could possibly do to the American constitution and economy? Just a thought.
Typically, you only see what you want to see. It has already been described in this thread. As a result of the cowardly votes of a lot of Republicans and some Democrats, including Obama, but not including the Democratic Senate leadership (the height of irony, considering how Obama voted), all the dirty details will stay secret, short of a miracle. Glenn Greenwald What we learned in December, 2005 that George Bush and the telecoms were doing -- listening in on the private conversations of American citizens without warrants -- is a felony under clear U.S. law, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine for each offense. Anyone can go read the section of FISA -- right here -- that says that as clearly as can be: A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally -- (1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; . . . An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both. It was also as clear a violation of the Fourth Amendment as can be. For the Government to invade our communications with no probable cause showing to a court is exactly what the Founders prohibited as clearly as the English language permitted. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/09/fisa/ http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=150989&page=1&pp=20 <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wmot0aZy4MM&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wmot0aZy4MM&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> Impeach George W. Bush and Tricky Dick Cheney.
Since the White House admited repeatedly violating the FISA previsions requiring a warrant, I'm not sure that explaining it to you again and you making up some BS legal opinion whereby the President is not required to follow the law will serve anything. But if you really want to know the White House violated, and has admited to violating: TITLE 50, CHAPTER 36, SUBCHAPTER I, § 1802 and TITLE 50, CHAPTER 36, SUBCHAPTER I, § 1811
hmmmm, so why hasn't the issue appeared before the SCOTUS, or haven't impeachment proceedings begun, or, at the very least, charges been filed...against...someone?
