So that is your argument? If nobody is arrested then no laws have been broken? Nice. I think you can figure out that answer for yourself, especially when you have a yes-man Attorney General believes he is a subordinate to the President who believes in the legal doctrine that laws don’t apply to the president when the president doesn’t like the laws and that president decides he believes it is an emergency. Tell me, basso, if no laws have been broken, why was there so much debate in congress about granting retroactive immunity? Why need immunity if no laws have been broken?
1. Not everyone speaks and read English the same...a certain word that means the same thing to you and me might mean something totally different to a senator from Iowa. Who we can't hold accountable, well at least, not directly? 2. As we've seen with everything else, when comes to power players in America...the law, especially constitution law is negotiable, like everything else. It's not like anybody gonna actually tell on them, so if they do. It's not like anybody can throw them in jail. No taxation without representation...I wonder how much water that statement holds today in modern America. 3. I don't think most people knew what FISA was 1978 and what it is now...while I have caught a few people talking about it, even my own mother. Who said, "It didn't matter because I don't have anything to hide and I am not a terrorist....I am not doing anything illegal." "They can listen in on my conversations all they want to." I don't think average person really cares, at least not in my reality. Esp. when some didn't even know it existed. 4. Those guys who founded US of America have been dead for what....good two centuries and 30+ years. It's not like they can enforce it themselves, unless their ghost come to haunt in Washington D.C. 5. It's a just (G.d@mn) piece of paper....allegedly. In support of that notion, laws and rights are arbitrary, anyway. Rules are meant to be broken. Freedom of Speech, Haebas Corpus, Right to Bear Arms, Cruel & Unusual Punishment, and Unreasonable searches, arrest, and seizures. You can't say or express anything you want to with your arms to bear in middle of airport or park. While, it is not always smart to give a terrorist, a drug lord, and child molestors the right to fair trial, since there is chance of them not being found guilty. Jeffery Dahmer-types. Which is why we need a little cruel and unusual punishment? Transparent as an apparation of a founding father farting in Potomac River. This is just what some will say....be done with it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hate to say it, Deck, we might be a little bit on the screwed side. I guess I might as well as start praying/wishing for a live, talking, nearly sentient sex-doll with blue skin who can give me killer bj. Little far-fetch, but more realistic than asking a few pushovers to use their power to guard the constitution that they are sworn in by and allows them not be ruled by tyranny. Or tyrannical type laws..............so I guess I just might as well get screwed and be happy.
I already did tell you. § 1802 & § 1811. So your position is that if nobody is charged, then no laws have been broken, but that if people are charged, it would only be because of posturing? So essentially, the only two options are the president didn't break the law or the Democrats are making a stink about nothing? There is no set of conceivable set of circumstances where the president could actually have broken the law? Very nice insight into the twisted, logically-challenged legal/political philosophy of Basso. If you examine the situation with a sufficiently insane set of stacked-deck rules and conditions, I can see how you could come to some of the insane conclusions about GWB that you end up with.
I know this is depressing, but you can't stop fighting for the Constitution and for justice. Those Democrats and Republicans who voted for this travesty should never be allowed to forget just how despicable this act was. I still can't believe Barack Obama voted for this thing. Below are those who voted no. Someone explain to me why the Democratic nominee for President is not on this list. Every nay vote was from a Democrat. Among the nays were members of the Senate leadership, including Majority Leader Reid. Voting nay were Democratic leaders and prominent members like Biden, Boxer, Clinton, Dodd, Durbin, Feingold, Harkin, Kerry, Leahy, Levin, Schumer, and Stabenow. Again, where in the hell is Barack Obama? Akaka (D-HI) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Clinton (D-NY) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Harkin (D-IA) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Menendez (D-NJ) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Wyden (D-OR) Impeach Bush/Cheney.
Even the OBama fans have to admit their golden boy is kinda shady. I already knew Clinton voted for it, yesterday. Was a bit shock, because on most security issues, like the Patriot Act and MC Act of 2006...she followed the majority.
Not sure about that. A warrant isn't required in all cases. So in any case, Bush overreached after 9/11 and side-stepped FISA. Ok, this was done. But the telecom companies at that point had to go along with it. And they all did. Now, perhaps after some time they should have questioned the legality, and they didn't. But is that something they should be sued over - when it's blurry? THe current lawsuits if allowed would bankrupt the entire industry. You can't do that. The current legislation makes FISA the standard once again, and ends BUsh's NSA program. The way to solve this sort of problem, which is really an issue between the executive and legislative branch is through political, not legal means. And that's what we are seeing.
Yup, you have to take off the blindfold to see Deckard. but I have yet to see anyone put forward an argument on how the new FISA legislations is going to damage our democracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/faachallenge.html
I'm not mad about my civil liberties being violated by Barack Obama, I'm just flattered that he cares enough about me to want to listen to what I have to say on the phone.
FISA was around before 9.11 - why didn't people complain about it then??? So now when we put Bush's wiretapping program under FISA where it belongs, everyone is unhappy with FISA? And the 4th Amendment doesn't cover wiretapping, and it doesn't protect non-citizens in foreign countries. SO it's not even applicable here.
Because before 9/11 Presidents went to FISA court. Bush decided he didn't want to go to FISA court. He just got the law changed to retroactively protect telecoms from prosecution against violations of FISA law. It is illegal for anybody to even investigate whether telecoms have violated FISA law. Essentially, they are now above the law. It sounds like you don't even really understand the provisions of the bill that have people upset. (source) [rquoter] The provisions of the bill granting immunity to the complicit telecoms create a roadblock for a number of lawsuits intended to expose and thwart the alleged abuses of power and illegal activities of the federal government since and before the September 11th attacks. [/rquoter] As far as the 4th Amendment covering wiretapping, it is fairly well established law that it does.
fisa establishes the exclusive means of wiretapping. how is that not the case? secondly no the telecoms could have gone to court over this instead of bending over and having top secret rooms established in their facilities with feeds of ALL communications they handle. and of course they should be sued over this. should they win? i don't know. depends on the law, the facts and the judge/jury. but why shouldn't they be sued? blurry is exactly when courts are needed. how do you figure this? if the lawsuits succeed then this would be a possibility. i guess its not so blurry if you think they are guilty and also liable for big money. the legislature is not allowed to give the executive its power. nor is it allowed to take away judicial power. both of which it did.
Supreme Court ruled back in 1929 that wiretapping was not covered by the 4th amendment. also, the amendment allows for reasonable cause - most searches are done without a warrant and not in violation of the 4th amendment. but unless a wiretap involves going onto someone's physical property, it's not considered a physical "search or seizure" recently, the supreme court ruled against some of the cases regarding the bush NSA wiretapping program: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/19/7158/ The fact is that national security is reasonable cause to have a warrantless wiretapping program. Now, I do think telecom companies should have immunity, and i also think that the fisa court should have oversight to ensure that absuse doesn't start taking place and people aren't being targeted for other purposes. But that is what this bill does. It essentially accepts the reality of the situation and history - and that is the CIA / NSA, and executive has been wiretapping and spying (all activities that are techniquely illegal) for a hundred years. The supreme court is going to allow it during times of war or grave threats to national security. And Al Qaeda certainly is that. Now the program will be supervised by FISA to ensure that it's not abused. So let's move forward and be happy that we have something in place that does the job. Why are people so upset about the immunity clause????
And in 1215 the Magna Carta decided that Jews are subject to different and less equitable money lending laws than Christians. Thankfully for both cases, we have more recent law which supercedes those previous mistaken decisions. In the case of wiretapping, Katz v. United States (1967) [rquoter] Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) was a United States Supreme Court decision that extended the Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure to protect individuals in a telephone booth from wiretaps by authorities without a warrant. [/rquoter] Not to repeat myself... [rquoter] The provisions of the bill granting immunity to the complicit telecoms create a roadblock for a number of lawsuits intended to expose and thwart the alleged abuses of power and illegal activities of the federal government since and before the September 11th attacks. [/rquoter] Now Bush & Co. can violate FISA all they want and there is no legal way to call them on it. I repeat. Bush & Co. can violate FISA all they want and there is legal mechanism to hold them accountable. They have placed themselves above the law. I'm sure you consider that just some minor point, but some people find that very upsetting.
i don't see how granting immunity to the telecom companies protects the president. people can still sue the u.s. gov't for wiretapping - just not the telecom. that doesn't mean the telecom industry can't have their wiretapping subpoenaed. Just meaning they aren't liable for activities that they are instructed to do in the interests of national security. Nor should they be. The point is the gov't and NSA need leeway in gathering information and they have reasonable cause. Should it be supervised? absolutely. the FISA court should be watching over big brother. But should the telecom be liable? no. I don't see how the immunity for them protects the president. And Bush and co are nearly out of office. is this just so you can go after Bush? Personally who cares - his term is over in less than one year. I don't think a case has been made why immunity for telecom is bad.
The FISA court has no oversight if the White House chooses to avoid them as they have already stated they have done. You obviously aren't really looking. Did you watch the videos on the ACLU link that I posted earlier? That would be a good place to start. If you want to find the case, you can. If you prefer not to, I'm sure you can continue to avoid it. As far as why you can't suppena and directly sue the USA, you can find the answers to that if you really want to as well. The arguments have all been made. You just don't want to look for them, apparently.
