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.'"
Um, just curious. What about the protections due to us average citizens, or don't we count anymore?
What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
Until the Republican-slanted Supreme Court overrules that brave federal judge with a party-line vote, new guy Alito being the tiebreaker. This is a victory, but do not be mistaken, it is a hollow one.
I fully agree with the sentiment. Nixon resigned under the shadow of impeachment for illegally wiretapping a hotel. One single place. This administration basically wrietapped the entire country. I can't understand why their wasn't more outrage. It saddens me.
My humor is probably your flamebait
Given the way the American legal system works, it's far more likely that we'll all just get coupons toward extra phone services we don't have now, the phone companies will run some public service advertisements about communications, and the lawyers will rake in piles of cash.
I can't understand why their wasn't more outrage.
<neocon>
Because Bush is wiretapping the country to save us from the terrorists! The terrorists!!! You remember the terrorists, don't you? Aren't you still afraid??? FEAR!!! Fearing another terrorist attack and surrendering our freedoms and rights is the only way to safeguard us from the terrorists!
</neocon>
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
When there was freedom of speech, privacy, liberty in U.S. ?
Well thats a relief.
Read radical news here
What happened to the good old days... when crimes against the entire country were dealt with as "treason" and the bastards were hanged?
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
"Wait, you mean that a company that wronged me and my fellow countrymen might be under legal penalty? You mean I might have as much right to my privacy as my government?"
It's not as simple as that, the NSA has a certain degree of authority that they most certainly abused. If a government agency that high up came to you and told you to do something that wouldn't really affect your company financially would you do it? I assume that the telcos thought they would be in way more trouble if they didn't comply, the NSA would make them their enemies (Would you want to be on the bad side of the NSA?) that the media would tear them apart for assisting "terrorists". As an informed slashdottter, I am appalled. From a business and PR perspective, I can sympathize.
The true evil here is the NSA, while it is a common stratagy for the executive branch to pretend it has more power than it does, these guys took it way too far. Don't get me wrong I think the telcos should have thought a bit longer, hopefully they will get some sort of punishment so there is more of an incentive for companies to think before they comply with a government request.
If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
It's only a matter of time before the Supreme court reverses the decision. If the Supreme court supports the decision then the program will continue in secret. No news here, move along.
I doubt the American public gives a flying crap either way. They're too busy watching American Idol to be concerned with telcom issues.
I can't understand why their wasn't more outrage.
I think it has a lot to do with motivation. Many people feel that the Government/Bush is doing what it/he can (sometimes misdirected) to thwart terrorist attacks. Whether or not you agree with the wisdom of his decisions, it's hard to fault the motivation and gin up some "outrage".
Nixon's was clearly a case of playing unethical (and illegal) tricks on a political opponent.
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
Let's be serious here, this won't stand its ground. As long as the judges aren't independent from the rest of the governmental body, they will be at the governments beck and call. At the very least, this will be squished once it touches the supreme court.
I'll try to keep an eye on this to find out just how long it takes until that matter is "settled" (read: Drowned in enough red tape to be grinding to a halt), and at what body it will perish. Because if this matter is turned down and not even investigated, as I expect, the separation of powers in the US is dead. When the executive branch can do what it wants without being held in check by the supreme court, the transformation to a police state is finished.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I'll reiterate:
The US government must think that Americans are lazy, brainless sheep who will shut out even the most obvious evidence that criminals are running the country. I mean seriously, only the most idiotic... Oh look! American Idol is on!
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
To what extent are the service providers expected to know what the NSA is and is not allowed to do? If the NSA comes in and says you must do something, how much right do you have in that situation to say "no", or "let our lawyers approve this first"? With the Patriot Act in place and the fact that no one has ever really read what it actually says, how is anyone expected to stand up and tell the NSA to bugger off, that's unconstitutional? But these companies are not even the victims I'm concerned about.
What about those victims who were wrongly spied on? Those are the ones I'm afraid will end up paying for all this. If the service providers are sued for damages, where does that money come from? Either increased fees to consumers (who are the real victims), or the companies sue the government for some sort of wrongful representation of what the legality of the program was and NSA/Bush's rights to require them to comply and all that, and the government uses tax money to pay off their own legal losses, again going back to the consumers/victims.
Legally, we may have a win. Financially, we're all screwed, but I guess that's not really any different than any other day. Hopefully it at least gives companies reason to have a backbone and look into legal issues like that instead of just assuming NSA's requests are legit and immediately caving into that kind of intimidation, and possibly avoid a recurrence. But I won' tbe suprised if government in the future again will fool companies into unknowingly (in at least some cases) doing illegal things, or intimidating them into doing it anyway.
Ironically these people are members of the party that claims to champion a limited federal government that operates for not against the people. They campaigned on the very idea of shrinking government and reducing its invasiveness. They have reduced education and social spending (mostly through crippling unfunded mandates). They have left the science budget the same but selectively trimmed spending on some subjects e.g. Global Warming. But when it comes to spying on Americans and invading others no amount is too high and no law apparently can stand.
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.
This isn't flamebait, I'm being serious, the only other times that I can think of where anyone claimed such a thing (rule of law but my word is above all law) was the old Russian Tsars after Katherine the Great, and Adolf Hitler who had the "Furher's Princip". Again this isn't flamebait it is frightening.
Is there any reason to think that the telcos went along cheerfully? If so, unleash the lawyers^Whounds. However, I can easily imagine them being subject to pressures I'd rather avoid.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
clinton was impeached for lieing about a bj. now that bush has violated the rights of every person in gitmo, broken the law to spy on everyone, and in general ignored laws that displease him, can we impeach this pos now too?
the goverment is corrupt. we need to format and start over with a fresh install.
i support a death penalty for gov corruption / incompetance. all public servants should face 2x the penalty of a normal citizen. im tired of assholes who get elected just to increase their wealth.
-.no
They're in a bad position? Oh, the poor corporations! We, the people, have for generations had to fight and die to defend our freedoms, but the new "Corporate people" who demand all the rights of citizenship might get stuck paying a fine or something if they refuse to actively break the law! The horror! The unfairness of it all!
I say the consequence for violating the constitution should be stiffer than anything corrupt officials can impose--say, complete and utter destruction of the corporation. Collaborate with corrupt government officials in an unconstitutional act? Fine. You aren't a corporation anymore. Everyone is fired, the assets are auctioned off and the proceeds (after all the corporation's debts are paid) goes to the shareholders. That way, it becomes a no brainer to say "No way!" the next time you are asked to betray the nation at the behest of a few power hungry elected officials or their minions.
That, or we could just give 'em a pass this time and hope that they've learned their lesson...
--MarkusQ
You know that saying that came out after 9/11, how if we don't do this or that, the terrorists have won? Well, they did win. Life in American will never be the same again.
Space for rent, inquire within
Yep!
It looks like most people already got used to Newspeak nowadays...
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
Not really. I doubt anyone alive today remembers 1788 all that well.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
These telcos explicitly participated actively in surveillence that their lawyers should have told them was illegal. But what about CALEA in general? What about all the new VoIP surveillence? "Echelon", or whatever they call it now? If/when these surveillence programs are held accountable, if/when they are proven to violate the law and rights of Americans, what kind of liability will telcos, ISPs, and just nodes on the network hold just for compliance?
Should we offer users security from surveillence out of our obligation to ourselves for avoiding liability when the government abuses our cooperation? Or even just protecting ourselves from lawsuits which will fail but cost expenses/time, or just the ill will of the market? Qwest communications apparently did not cooperate with the NSA domestic spying program. Did they make the only good business decision of all their competitors?
--
make install -not war
Privacy is only for nutcases with kooky ideas, and miscreants trying to hide their activities. Do you really think that my fellow Alabamans care if you have phonesex and talk about a blowjob? Ok, there's a law against blowjobs here, but really, who's gonna arrest you? And so what if someone plays your blowjob talk in front of the whole world one day? That's the whole point of removing privacy for Americans; if you're too ashamed of what you do in secret being shouted on the mountaintops, maybe you shouldn't be doing it.
As for our Government's privacy.... they need privacy. Unlike your fantasies of privacy, their privacy is in the interest of protecting us from terror. A Government shrouded in absolute secrecy and shielded from accountability, ruling over a completely transparent constituency, is the only way to assure our public safety.
I for one would rather sacrifice my freedoms than risk my safety.
This is Pat Riot, the voice of a safe, secure America!
[okay, you just know this is a parody, right?]
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
According to wikipedia, companies do not have to give full and complete accounting of their records if it the president gives them permission in the name of national security.
"Companies are permitted by US securities law (15 U.S.C. 78m(b)(3)(A)) to refrain from properly accounting for their use of assets in matters involving national security, when properly authorized by an agency or department head acting under authorization by the President. This legalese essentially means that companies can falsify their accounting reports and lie about their activities when the President decides that it is in the interests of national security to do so. President Bush issued a presidential memorandum on May 5, 2006 delegating authority to make such a designation to Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, just as the NSA call database scandal appeared in the media." [Emphasis mine]
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
you have to assume that it is legal
Bullshit. And your police example isn't appropriate. Nothing is done in big business or big government without paperwork. These telecoms are REQUIRED to ask for the paperwork. They each have a department full of lawyers who would tell every employee, "Make sure to get the paperwork to cover our asses."
What's the worst the government would do to the telecoms for not complying? Raise their FCC license fees? Every one of those telecom employees who complied and is a US citizen conspired with the government to impinge on the rights of fellow citizens. I hope they get sued for every last dollar they earned while trampling over our rights.
Developers: We can use your help.
That would be silly, given all the unconstitutional/illegal things he has admitted (even bragged) about doing.
Not at all correct. As Hamilton pointed out in the Federalist Papers, impeachment of judges for rulings which go against the intent of congress is an essential part of the checks and balances:
--MarkusQ
You know there are a lot of well-meaning people who end up getting the shaft when people in authority abuse power. The problem is that if you don't follow orders, you're likely to be arrested. Imagine being a soldier protesting orders on the grounds that they were unethical... in some countries, any such people were quickly removed from the gene pool. My fellow slashdotters, we in the U.S. live in a police state. If the police tell you to do something, you damn well better do it, or you're not going to see the sun shine for a long time after some court somewhere decides that you were told to commit an illegal act. And being, as you are, an "idiot citizen," the government doesn't afford you the right to judge right vs. wrong for yourself.
So you're damned it you don't (they'll arrest you right away if you refuse), and you're damned if you do (you'll be up on civil or criminal charges later when it's determined that you were asked to do an illegal thing). In this system, you can't win.
Mind you, companies like AT&T have a lot of lawyers and a lot of power. But even they can't refuse completely. If you refuse to do what the NSA says, they will find a judge to issue an order to close down your business a LOT quicker than you can find another judge to rule their orders illegal. Oh, and then there are the various appeals processes that draw it out, leaving you in legal limbo for years.
Up until the moment that your orders are found illegal, refusing to follow those orders is the only thing illegal.
I agree with the gist of your message, but I just wanted to point out that as much as we slashdotters like to jeer at American Idol watchers, we're no better. How many of us play WoW? How many of us watch ESPN or play sports? Well, scratch that last one. =P Entertainment--any entertainment--is a a distraction; from the most banal (American Idol) to the most intellectual (Tinkering with the Linux kernal).
This isn't the only case where we are very hypocritical, though. Look at your sig and its disdain of SUVs--a common theme around here lately. Sure, most SUVs are fuel inefficient and oftentimes unnecessary. But sports cars are inefficient and, by definition, unnecessary? How many of us have sports cars or would be falling over ourselves to check out some high-tech innovation in one? Why is this?
Now I'm not saying I'm any better or worse in this regard. But perhaps we might have a more effective time of convincing the general public to change if we started advocating change within ourselves.
-Grym
Well, darn, that makes me mad. I think I'll just take my AT&T business elsewhere. Oh wait, we've gone back to 1980 and there is no elsewhere!
This is the single point that pisses me off the most.
Remember when Bush stood on the rubble pile there right after the attack and said that we would not allow the terrorists to change our way of life?
Now, we only find out 4 years later (last year) that he was arranging to rob us of our Constitutional rights, as those words came out of his mouth. Too bad we found out so late in the game, or I wouldnt have likely voted for him again.
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. --James Madison
No the answer is for Americans to get the *&%$ over this two party mentality and the driving NEED to vote for the guy who one and VOTE, VOTE OFTEN and VOTE YOUR CONTSCIENCE, not who you think is going to win.
Also do not vote based on a single issue. Regardless of what you may think of the abortion issue basing a decition as important as who you vote for on that single issue is STUPID. If politician X agrees with me on 8 of 10 issues I find important and disagrees on 2, and politician Y agrees with 2 and disagrees on 8, why the hell would I pick Y even if those 2 where "hot button" issues? Yet oh so many Americans do.
You know as well as me that the judge's decision will be overturned. There is absolutely no way that the American legal-political system, as it currently exists, could possibly agree, for an extended period of time, that there has been wrongdoing by both the executive and just about every telecom company. What's more, when the decision is overturned we'll be worse off than before because the legality of the status quo as of the day before yesterday will be enshrined as legal precedent and so the government will move on to push the boundaries even further.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Honestly, I don't see these recent events as anything different than has happened in the past. From the view of the NSA, knowing everything you that everybody does helps to protect the masses. You should have no doubt that the NSA was, in fact, really trying to combat national security threats with these wiretaps. You should also have no doubt that this information has been used for that purpose. Though we are more worried about the OTHER, less acceptable, ways it can/will be used.
The bottom line is that despite how helpful it can be for *them*, it is still a blatent violation of American civil rights and liberties. The NSA needs to do its job, but it needs to do it within the bounds of the law. Expect the NSA and every other government agency right down to the local sheriff to *always* try to push the limits. That includes altering/creating law, as was done here. The masses do the same. It's this endless struggle that makes this country special. The Executive branch stepped (jumped) over the line. The people found out, organized and went to the courts. The courts smacked the executive and the bussinesses involved. That's how America works.
If you don't believe me, just look back to the communist witch hunts during the cold war. Look at the Japanese internment camps during World War II. Im sure it'd be easy to look back further than that.
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who do not.
But not on impeachment. Rather with sweeping legislation clearing the telcos of any civil and/or criminal liabilities. And in fact increasing the power of the telco monopolies while they are at it through a few well hidden amendments.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Shame on you people making pathetic excuses for a corporation. "Oohh, don't want to piss off the 'powers that be'!"
Spineless cowards, I thought you Americans were supposed to have some spunk?
When you put this into perspective plain and simple the Telcos were wrong to go along w/ this. The Bush Administration came to them and said we want to tap your hubs. The first thing that should have come to mind for the telcos was is this legal. The second thing that should have come to mind is that they have an obligation to their customers FIRST. You know the people paying them for service? Third, they should have thought about the 4th amendment to the constitution and the first amendment on which their services rely heavily.
The fact is that they were completely complicit in these actions. They probably didn't even submit it to their lawyers or if they did their lawyers said well if anyone sues us we'll argue that we were told by the government, etc.
Remember they also aren't just tapping phones they are analyzing and filtering ALL of the data that passes through the ATT switches...IE EVERYONE!
This administration and the companies cooperating in warrantless eavesdropping are guilty of the biggest constitutional offense in US history...the baffling part is that they openly admit it as though it were legal and / or ok.
Impeachment NOW! Don't wait until the rest of the amendments have been violated.
Good thing nothing like that happened when Bush got 'elected.' Or when his VP and Chief of Staff leaked Valerie Plame's occupation. Or when he ignores parts of laws he doesn't like with his 'signing statements.' Or when he led the country to a ruinously expensive war based on wishful thinking and fat checks to his VP's former company.
I don't understand what supporting a family has to do with being ethically bankrupt.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
In this case though, what it will take is descent into dicatatorship. It's unfortunate, but people will not wake up until they no longer have easy access to bread and circuses, and they realize that they can no longer afford to ignore their government. That, unfortunately, doesn't seem to happen until their day to day life becomes so odious that they are FORCED to take action.
We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
I'm sure the police here would be much more effective without having to ever get warrants at all. Our government isn't about making governments job easier, our government is founded on the idea that its SUPPOSED to be crippled, because organized abuse of power is much more harmful than any terrorist plot.
Freedom is more important than life itself, which is why our founders and those that followed fought a war. I'm sure you'd be safe from terrorists in the old Soviet Union as well. You're replacing one threat (terrorist) with an even bigger one (uncontrolled government).
If you're worried about preventing deaths, why not crusade against cars? Car accidents cause much more death than any terrorist. Indeed, you're more likely to die of heart disease than a terrorists bomb.
How you can call the judge an idiot is beyond me; the government ADMITTED THEY WERE TAPPING!! It wasn't just her feeling, they said loud and clear "Yes, we are conducting massive un-warranted wiretaps."
Dude, learn to think, worry about things that actually have a good chance of killing you, like cancer and heart disease.
Why don't you guys go and make life difficult for an actual bad guy and not people trying to protect you for once.
Because I'm not a complete and total idiot as I'd have to be to believe that they were actually trying to protect me.
Bush and friends *are* bad guys. Just because there are other bad guys in the world doesn't change that fact.
The world really isn't as simple clear cut black and white as you so obviously wish it was.
Unfortunately, outrage rarely impacts political decision making at this level without an impending election, and this president does not face another election. We teetered at 50/50 around both of the elections Bush survived, but by now less than one third of Americans support this president and this country's "direction." There is outrage, and plenty of it, but it doesn't much matter.
Our "leaders" are much more "practical" than that.
On practicality: Nixon ducked out because Congress was not his own, and they would have made history in hanging him (if not literally). Note that there had been several earlier attempts in the House of Representatives to impeach Nixon which stalled or failed in the Judiciary committee. Bush and company own Congress. What happens in Congress, or what could potentially happen, metes out mid-term justice with respect to the presidency.
If you want Bush to actually respond to the now-large-majority American public opinion, then you've got to win Congress for the Democrats; or, enjoy the rest of his run at America and the world. Period. BG
Republicans in Nixon's time would be considered liberal or "democratic" in today's society.
Interesting statistics there. In Vietnam we were at a roughly 10:1 kill ratio. In Iraq we're way over that at 171:1
And this is something we should be proud of?
This isn't a video game, and many of those dead (like the Viet Namese before them) are nothing more than collateral damage in the eyes of the military.
Besides, it's not your tax dollars, or mine, paying for this. It'll be the taxes of our sons and daughters, and likely their sons and daughters, that will pay for this ill conceived and poorly executed attempt at redefining a regions political and cultural landscape.
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
Nobody,including this judge, said the government isnt allowed to spy. They/we are saying, that the government isnt allowed to spy without a warrant presented to and approved by a FISA court.
You bushbots can keep presenting straw man arguments and attempts at obsfucating the issues, but it boils down to this....
we are a nation of laws. That includes the President and those that work for him. No exceptions.
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
I drive a "sports" car that gets 30+ mpg (I've gotten upwards of 40mpg by babying it on the highway, measured by distance/gallons used).
I used to drive a truck that, when babied, got a whole 18 mpg. City driving made it plummet quickly into the 12mgp range. Most sports cars (unless it's got a V10-V12) get better fuel economy than this. In fact, some of the innovations in sports cars (the Audi R10 for one) increase fuel economy.
On the note of fuel economy, and the like, what is the point of 10% ethanol gas. My car runs worse, gets less mpg (around 10% less mpg). Is it just an excuse to dilute the fuel, and charge the same for it? I know it reduces emissions, but when I have to use more to go the same distance, it seems like it isn't doing anything helpful. Much like the "hybrid" cars, that cost you more than they'll ever save you in fuel (fuel savings for 3 years is usually around $3000, the replacement battery in 3 years is around $3500-$4000), and the technology to make the batteries is also harmful to the environment.
I feel compelled to support the parent of this post and a few above it in their noting that it is ILLEGAL, IMMORAL and just plain TERRORISTIC of the US Government to be tapping calls without a warrant. For those who argue that there is a foreign danger, they simply do not understand what is going on. This program was never aimed at the foreign threat. It was aimed at domestic suppression. It wasn't targeted at any terrorism purpose unless you view citizens exercising their rights as terrorists towards a criminal government. I have read the RFP's on these programs. They were not limited tapping for terrorism. It was tapping everything everywhere all the time and forever.
There can only be one rational explanation of why these people wanted to avoid the special courts set up to handle proper warrants. They were against the law and for bad purpose since the special courts give very nearly carte blanche to the government requests. This is prima facia evidence of a government going far out of its way and starting to act as a Terrorist itself. In point of fact is is running a MAFIA PROTECTION RACKET. For those who don't understand, you set up a terror condition and sell protection. In this case the mobster has the luxury of not even having to hire the enforcer since Al Qaeda and others will provide the terror for the ordinary people and they just shake us down of trillions of dollars in taxes.
Please wake up people. Hurricane Katrina Relief on the US Gulf Coast (2005) has amounted to 220,000 homes needing recovery help. The current expenditures of the US Feds is $178 Billion. That breaks down for those who cannot use a calculator to $809,090 per home. The homes are not rebuilt folks and volunteers are still cleaning up. This govenment is stealing Billions of dollars every place it can from the American People. The current administration fears it will be found out and properly opposed. This is why they are doing their data acquistion programs. They are planning terror if we oppose them. Doubt me? Look at what they do every time there is an argument against them. Look and see if they have actually been effective anywhere at any time for stopping terror. They have not been. They refuse to clean up the US border situation and in point of fact are the prime instigators of the trouble. They accused community watch types (The Minuteman Project) of being terrorists.
Well we citizens are terrorists to these criminals. If we wake up and put them in jail their reign will be over. Do not make anything partizan out of this. This is pure citizenship.
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
What's amazing is how the rough, tough Authoritarian Right-Wing in this country turned into a bunch of frightened little bedwetters because of a single terrorist attack, so willing to have "Big Daddy" government take away their rights and freedoms so they can be protected. I have to say that I'm ashamed so many of my countrymen have bought into the manipulation of the Bush Administration, which is simply bent on consolidating power at any cost. The events of recent weeks in Britian have shown that a civilized country can fight terrorism without resorting to breaking the law. Even if it's a little bit harder, so be it. We have accepted a lot of things that are harder because we are a free people. Remember, it's much easier to govern as a dictator than as an elected official, responsible to the citizenry. And, it's much easier to live in prison than in the free world. I choose to be free, as have Americans for more than two centuries. And when I hear the Bill Bennetts, William Kristols, Bill O'Reillys and Sean Hannitys, shaking in their boots, so afraid that the big bad terrorists are going to drop a plane on their heads, just begging the likes of Dick Cheney and George Bush to please, take away their freedom so they don't have to pee their pants any more, it disgusts me, as it should disgust every American.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Does it strike anybody else as odd that the article quotes the prediction of doom for the telcos made by the very people who are suing said telcos?
"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.
I mean, the quote pulled from TFA is from the ACLU's lead attorney. Sounds like a severe case of somebody saying exactly what you would expect them to say -- about they only thing they can say without looking like they've filed a frivilous lawsuit. So, whatever you think about the merits of the case, the merits of the prediction are clearly too underwhelming to get worked up about.
As for the merits of the case, scared people do dumb things. We had Japanese internment camps in WWII, and the system righted itself. I'm guessing that after all the thrash and bluster, it will this time, too. Of course, I didn't start saying that until I took off my tin foil hat.
Ramtek, I think the parent was using common sense.
First a disclaimer: I work for an American television network in the news division. You will not see my commentary on our news report because we have been pandering to this Administration (and no, we're not Fox, which does not do news).
The Bush administration's talking point is to say that these people (being wiretapped) are calling Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda is calling them.
The reason why we have a judge approve a wiretap is to provide for a check on this very issue: What the administration says may or may not be true here. How do we (the public) know that on one end of the telephone is an Al Qaeda operative? The Bush administration is not exactly giving the American public a listing of the telephone numbers in question, nor the owners of those numbers.
Many people on Slashdot feel (at this point) that the Bush Administration has lied to the American public in the past. I was certain, prior to our attack on Iraq, that the Bush Administration was lying about the Weapons of Mass Destruction in that country. Today, only the lunatic fringe, like Ann Coulter and Dick Cheny still say that there were WMDs in Iraq. I was certain, despite the fact that I am not a CIA operative, because I use common sense. Saddam Hussein was very reluctant to tell anyone that he had no such weaponry because his enemy, to the east of him, was listening in. When he publically stated that he had no such weaponry (some five weeks before the US invasion) and cooperated with the UN inspectors, it was an absolute humiliation for him in the eyes of all hard-line Arab countries in the region.
There is no way he would have done that were he not telling the truth.
Another key phrase and "talking point" from the Bush administration prior to the was was "Regime Change." Bush set us on a course for invasion when he first uttered those words, a good four months before the invasion. Bush was lying when he said the US would do everything in our power to avert a war in Iraq after he set us on the course of regime change.
Another key was Bush's new "doctrine of pre-emption." No American President has ever told other countries that if they did something provocative that they would be invaded. To offer this novel doctrine is to declare the end of diplomacy as an American tool to protect our interests. Bush publically announced that the United States is now the bully on the playground who will slug first, ask questions later. This doctrine completely and absolutely justifies the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, as it was a pre-emptive strike (not followed by an invasion) to try to get us to sell them our oil and to end our embargo on Japan for their war with China. No President with any sense at all would set a precident like that, as it particularly endangers Americans abroad as well as the nation as a whole. Our "doctrine of pre-emption" may be safely adopted by any country that opposes us now.
Now, why would anyone believe this guy about anything he says. If he went out and swore on a stack of his overtly fundamentalist-Christian bibles that he was not wiretapping my calls, I'd stop using the telephone all together.
Despite the fact that you may disagree with this, due to your own political stance, all of this is logical, rational and sensible. Currently, most Americans believe that Bush lied about Iraq. If he lied about Iraq, don't you think that it would be appropriate to apply Constitutional limitations on this President (just like is required of all other Presidents since Washington) to have a judge make sure he is (actually the NSA operatives acting on his behalf are) not lying in each of these wiretapping cases?
I lost ten good friends on September 11th. Osama bin Ladin is still laughing at America and his network is, today, stronger than ever. Case in point is the fact that we now have regular second-generation well-educated English citizens (of Pakistani descent) planning to carry out a co
Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
What I like to do is remind people of George Bush's post-9/11 comment to the effect that "You're with us or you're with the terrorists".
Since I didn't vote for him, I have to draw the conclusion that he and his gang consider me a terrorist. Could he have said this any more clearly? So any time he says anything about what he'd like to do to terrorists, he's talking about what he'd like to do to me.
Is there any reason I should conclude differently?
It's not hard to imagine what other people in other countries were thinking when they heard this comment, especially the ones who might have made anti-Bush comments in the past.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.