Slashdot Mirror
Wiretap Ruling Threatens Telecoms
ches_grin writes "Yesterday's ruling on the NSA warrantless wiretapping program could mean that businesses that assisted in the program are in for some serious legal problems. The judge's decision clearly dismissed out of hand the arguments of the telecoms, saying that the protections due journalists and lawyers was a clear matter of the public's best interests." From the article: "Businesses accused of aiding the Bush administration in wiretapping could also be in for a legal bruising, say civil liberties groups that have sued telecom providers AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth for allegedly helping the NSA. The ruling could set a precedent other courts can't ignore. 'Every phone company that is assisting the government in its illegal surveillance would want to think long and hard before it continues that agreement,' says Ann Beeson, the ACLU's lead attorney in the case. 'There are already lawsuits claiming that their cooperation for the past several years is illegal and now that the judge has declared it is illegal, their liability increases. The risk is much greater from a business perspective.'"
yes corporations can resist government pressure to do questionably legal things. the big telecoms are much more established than google and are in a much better position to refuse to do illegal things for the government.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
There was burglary, theft, and perjury, not to mention numerous other items uncovered by Archibald Cox (and of course, others).
Oh yeah, and there were about 28,000 GIs killed in Viet Nam, not to mention about a quarter of a million Vietnamese.
I suppose those dead people didn't count in the indictments... nor the resignation of Spiro Agnew for tax fraud-- his vice president.
Now, between Bush Jr and Sr, we have about 600,000 Iraqis dead, 3,500+ of our troops.
So there's wiretapping incideous habeas corpus violations, and heavens knows what else in the Bush administration.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
can SCOTUS justices be impeached for treason?
Indeed...and it's been done before (albeit unsuccessfully in this particular case).
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
the protections due [citizens] was a clear matter of the public's best interests.
Here you have it: freedom > security.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
IANAL but it seems to me that some one should file charges on the president and the NSA based on
USC TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > 241
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured--
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
and maybe even
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
I say we make an example of them all. They like to make examples of others.
I think you don't realize the power of major telecoms. Cooperating with the NSA without law or court order to back up the request is highly unlikely to land an AT&T executive in jail or get the corporation sued. Now the gov may have played hardball another way, such as "do it or we pass network neutrality legislation," but that's about it.
No corporation can resist governmental pressure.
It has been widely reported that Qwest refused to comply with these requests on concern of their legality. And the administration did nothing about it because there was nothing for them to do. "Hey, give us a direct connection to your customers' personal data." "Sure thing, where's your subpeona?" "Oh, we're not doing that, we have the authority to ask for this data without any judicial oversight." "Oh wow, who gave you that authority?" "We did." What are they going to do if you say no, ask a judge to make you comply? Oh my, irony! Not only did they do nothing to Qwest, they said nothing about it because they have been applying every possible delaying tactic, including imposing as much secrecy as possible, to put off this day of reckoning. Not only is "because some bureaucrat told me to" not a good excuse for breaking the law, it is the worst excuse, exactly the kind of cowardly capitulation that leads to the worst sort of government corruption. Nobody deserves a free pass on this craven, cynical assault on the principles of freedom.
(on preview, the captcha for my sign-in was "conspire." Damn, they're on to me).
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
The lawyers got an exemption.
"Not even Richard Nixon went around claiming that he was just "above the law because he says so" but apparently these people think that it is a valid legal principle."
Actually, Richard Nixon *did* believe that the president's actions were always legal, by definition:
FROST: So what in a sense, you're saying is that there are certain situations, and the Huston Plan or that part of it was one of them, where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal.
NIXON: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.
FROST: By definition.
NIXON: Exactly. Exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they're in an impossible position.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
> The ruling could set a precedent other courts can't ignore.
I believe it will set a precedent that only courts in the same district can't ignore; courts in other districts can ignore it, though they may choose to take it as a persuasive authority. Only precedents from the Supreme Court of the United States are binding on *all* lower courts.
davidh
Yes, Nixon did some very dirty things, like trying to steal democracy from the American people. But his administration did more good for the country then GWB has. Just a few of Nixons lasting accomplishments:
- Creation of the E.P.A.
- Ending engagement in Vietnam
- Opening China to diplomatic relations, including their induction as a UN member state
- Singning of the SALT treaty and the ABM treaty with the soviets
- Embracing and signing-off on the NASA STS program
- Elimination of the "Gold Standard" of US Currency allowing more natural currency flux
No matter what, you can't seperate Nixon from Watergate. But he isn't anywhere near the worst president we've had. And in a way, watergate helped America. A healthy distrust for government is a good thing.
This world would've been a much better place today had RFK not been shot. He would've ate Nixons lunch in a general election and the course of history would've been changed. I'm a big blue-stater but I believe in giving credit where credit is due.
Bush seems to justify a lot of things by saying that the USA is at war. But it's not a type of war that anyone even half a century ago would have recognised. It may be that it *is* a war, (of sorts) but if so I see no prospect of it ever ending. Maybe you (and your allies, such as my own green and pleasant land) will acheive victory over Al Qaida et al but I'm sure that there will be more such extremists in the future.
If "war" can be used as a justification for additional powers make no mistake: they will be permenant.
I hope everyone was this angry when all the previous presidents did the same thing, or when this FISA BS was passed.... http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Warrantless_Eavesdr opping_Timeline
Maybe you should blame the founding fathers and the framers of the constitution for my attitude. By the way - I served my county in the Marines for 4 years. What have you ever given back? I don't even know why I am bothering to respond to you anyway. Troll.
My humor is probably your flamebait
The Bush administration is in a mess here. Their real problem is that if they'd asked the FISA court for the authority to do what they're doing, they'd have been turned down. If they'd asked Congress for it, some tough questions would have been asked by members of Congress in a position to demand answers. Remember, the conservative right, "Bush's Base", isn't comfortable with wiretapping. Bush can go to Congress for more wiretapping authority, but right now, he probably wouldn't get it. Hence the desperate legal moves.
And they are desperate. Notice what happened here. The Administration tried to use a secrecy order to prevent this issue from going to trial. That's because they can't win on the merits. But since the Administration had already admitted enough in public to establish that such wiretapping was going on, that didn't prevent the court from addressing the issue.
At the appeals level, the facts of the case aren't reviewed, just the law. Because, as the district judge pointed out, it is not controverted that such wiretapping occured, that's not a issue. So the secrecy issue isn't really an issue on appeal. This leaves the Administration with only its weak arguments.
Incidentally, this is a criminal statute. See 50 USC 1811. If you work for NSA, or a telephone company and are involved in illegal wiretapping, you could go to jail for five years. That could happen years in the future, under a future administration.
1. Argumentum ad hominem (tu quoque).
2. Commentary regarding Clinton's wiretaps.
3. Interesting article from the right about Clinton's requests for wiretapping authority, 5 years before 9/11.
-Mike
I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!
Bzzz, thanks for playing.
Judges determine the constitutionality of laws. They also determine whether actions are legal (comport with the law) or illegal (in violation of a law). You're confusing the judge's role as 1) interpreter of law and 2) interpreter of fact.
Function 1 is solely reserved to the judiciary. Judges add their fact finding role when they weigh evidence, such as evidentiary hearings, bench (jury-waived) trials, and when deciding motions. Juries are used only to determine facts. They don't decide questions of law. This was a motion decision, and the judge made a determination that a set of facts (the wiretapping) violated the law (here, several: Title 18, FISA, Amendments 1 and 4).
The Constitution IS a law. We do have a special name for violating it, unconstitutional, but illegal still works.
IANYL.
You watch too much of Fox news.
The administration can get warrants for the wiretapping before OR AFTER.
The british had warrants BTW and this was an ongoing operation over the course of a year so theres no reason they couldnt get a warrant anyway.
The real absurdity is that you, and your fox news buddies, cant give a real reason why we need this.
The government is built on checks and balances, remember that from school? If Bush can tap anyones phone calls he could tap democrats running against other republicans right? In this case if he went to court for a warrant, which you can do AFTER the fact, it would be denied of course and people would look into it. If it was a suspected terrorist it would be approved without many questions. See the point now?