Slashdot Mirror
Telecom Amnesty Opponents Back New Amendment
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "With the telecoms all but assured of amnesty for their participation in illegal spying, there's now one last amendment in their way — the Bingaman amendment. Because President Bush is unwilling to sign FISA reform without immunity, and because Blue Dog Democrats fear for their reelection unless FISA reform as a whole passes, most compromise positions are already off the table. So the new amendment seeks to sidestep part of the problem by moving it to a later date. It would put the court cases and amnesty provision on hold until a report is completed detailing exactly what happened, allowing Congress to consider denying amnesty at that time. There's an EFF campaign to support both this and the Dodd-Feingold amendment, which would strip immunity altogether."
step 1: retroactive immunity
step 2: retroactive crimes
step 3: prophet
I firmly believe that any immunity for the telecos is too much immunity.
Combating Corruption for Development: The Rule of Law, Transparency and Accountability PDF || Google Cache
France. The government there is afraid of its people. There was a recent slashdot story that illustrated how real lobbying in france is done by public, not corporations: http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/03/2156204&from=rss
If I'm not mistaken, the government ordered these telecom companies to provide access to phone lines. Why, then, should they not receive immunity from the government's crimes? Of course, if they weren't ordered to wiretap, but were simply requested to do so, then it's a different story.
NSA warrantless surveillance controversy
The trouble is that we have a choice between the Republicans who want amnesty and the Democrats who are afraid not to grant it. What kind of pressure can we bring?
Obama has an amazing ability to raise money from small donors. If the donors went on strike, Obama would react.
Enough of us have to tell the Democrats that we won't donate if amnesty passes but we might donate if it doesn't. The pressure from his supporters has forced Obama to react by telling us to suck it up. More pressure might force him to change the way he intends to vote.
The government isn't above the law. Just because you did something illegal at the request of our government doesn't make it ok.
They should be prosecuted (along with Bush and crooks) to the fullest extent of the law.
So I was browsing Wikipedia and came across the following definition for "fascism":
Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.
Hm. Committed nationalist militants working in collaboration with "traditional elites", such as large telcos.
Discuss.
This is why we need to limit Congress to one term in each office. Nothing gets in the way of principle like rational self-interest.
Frankly, if I were looking for good ways to combat corruption...I wouldn't look to the UN. They haven't exactly been the poster children for transparent, non-corrupt activities lately. And they certainly don't seem to be getting held accountable for their mis-steps. Heck, the security director during a genocide became the next Secretary General.
That's not to say the US couldn't use a lot more transparency and accountability, but I hardly think the UN should be dictating the gold standard to anybody.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
The government did only request they comply. Some companies refused.
But even if the government ordered them to, so what?
If a policeman ordered you to rob a bank, do you think you deserve amnesty? It's against the law no matter who tells you to do it.
Problems like this always boil down to the "representatives" in our "democracy" doing things which are not in the interest of the people.
It it time we got rid of the representatives and govern ourselves with the power of the internet.
This is why we need to limit Congress to one term in each office. Nothing gets in the way of principle like rational self-interest.
I agree. However, if someone knows that they'll have only one term, what's to prevent them from having a 'slash and burn mentality'?
Politician thinking: ''Hey, I'm here for only one term. What not vote for FISA bill because I'm for it and I believe that 'if you don't do anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.' And besides, regarding the folks who wrote in against this, fuck'em! What are they going to do? Not vote for me next time?!? Hahahahahah!''
Politicians: Damn them! Damn them all to hell!
The standard narrative for Dem caving is that they fear for their electability or whatever. It's also possible that they just believe what they vote for.
"We'll figure it out later!" Hope this doesn't lead to a civil war, too.
What they are doing by enacting this amnesty is denying the victims of the illegal wiretapping any recourse. Essentially anyone who used international circuits to transmit confidential or proprietary information had that information compromised and therefore devalued. I seem to recall back in the 70s the Soviets used much less detailed information on telecommunications related to commodity trading to buy an enormous amount of US wheat at an extremely low price.
Like I said, if it was a request then I could understand not granting immunity. If it was demanded by the government, then it would be justifiable to grant them immunity. Of course the government is above the law, but companies should not be punished for government crimes.
Wow you guys have no idea how the law works. Actually yes, that would essentially give you amnesty because the cop put you in a position you wouldn't normally be in. An undercover cop can't just walk up to you and offer you marijuana, you have to walk up to him.
It was wiretapping conversations involving calls outside the country with foreign terrorists. Period. Anyone telling you anything else is lying.
"If a policeman ordered you to rob a bank, do you think you deserve amnesty?"
Of course. Any action forced at gunpoint - or other threat of punishment from a force-wielding body - should be granted amnesty.
Of course, if they weren't ordered to wiretap, but were simply requested to do so, then it's a different story.
Which is exactly what happened. They were in no way forced to comply; they did so voluntarily.
The UN is nothing but the sum of its members.
And the US have been largely responsible for castrating it. Look at the use of veto in the UNSC in the past 30 years. Even USSR did not fuck it up that much.
"Which is exactly what happened. They were in no way forced to comply; they did so voluntarily."
Then they should be brought to justice.
I think the only way I'd be willing to accept telecom immunity is if all those involved in issuing the requests were prosecuted for it. Of course, that'll never happen...
Granted, that would need to be handled delicately, to say the least. But if someone were to come to me and say, "I need your help to rob a bank", I'd probably give the local police a heads-up. Why should it matter if they flashed a badge while making that request? (Except in that case I might give the FBI the heads-up instead.)
Are we a nation of laws or aren't we?
Actually, in this case it does. The law has always stated that the telecoms and their agents had a complete defense in any civil or criminal actions resulting from any law if the government or a law enforcement agency/officer presented the telecoms with documentation claiming their acts were legal. The FISA AG authorizations would have provided that independent of the AG's willingness to follow through on any other aspect of the law to keep it legal or not.
Of course, if the government didn't present the authority to do such taps to the telecoms, then they aren't covered. However, the current claim is that they would be but Bush classified the documents they need to prove the effect of the law which means they would be committing a felony if they defended their actions with the defenses provided by law. This has never really been about making the telecoms pay either. It has always been about gathering evidence on the administration which sort of seems like picking on the retarded neighbor kid in order to force his parents out of the house so someone else can rob them. Or at least that's how I see it.
1 - Get a gun and some ammo. (You'll probably need quite a lot of ammo).
2 - Shoot GW Bush in the head.
3 - Shoot him a few more times, just to be sure. And then kick him in the balls from me.
4 - Declare yourself president.
5 - Shoot anyone who disagrees with your presidency (for example, the vice president.)
6 - Repeat steps 4 and 5 until no-one disagrees.
7 - Declare retro-active immunity for yourself against charges of murder.
8 - ???
9 - Profit!!!
If he really "ordered" you to do it, that's called entrapment.
Who should these victims be getting recourse from? The government officials who made the illegitimate requests? Or the companies that perhaps ought to have stood up for their customers, but were scared of retaliation by the government?
Of course. Any action forced at gunpoint - or other threat of punishment from a force-wielding body - should be granted amnesty.
Then the telcos don't have anything to worry about when they plead their case in front of a court of law.
Like I said, if it was a request then I could understand not granting immunity. If it was demanded by the government, then it would be justifiable to grant them immunity. Of course the government is above the law, but companies should not be punished for government crimes.
No, the Government is not above the law. Please do not stop in the Bush droppings.
Yes, yes, we get it. The people who actually commit the crime are the victims here, just like those poor, poor mafia members paid to break legs and toss people in the lake with concrete shoes. They're just trying to make a living, can't we all cut them a break?!
If it was demanded by the government
Qwest refused and nobody went to jail. There was no "demand," just the government giving companies money to perform illegal acts.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Defense/ should remind you in to why you don't receive immunity for following an illegal order (if you know or should have known that it was illegal)
Your confusing two separate activities there. First, the wiretaps and then the refusals to provide access. The law, passed in 1994 says that the telecom providers must use certain equipment and make or provide access to the equipment. Bush attempted to use that to build data centers where bundles of lines passed through making tapping an entire region from one location a reality. It was to avoid having to send field agents to 200 different locations in order to effect a 2 minute tap. The law provides an out based on reasonableness and the claims that a company refused was a defense used by a CEO who was brought up and convicted on insider trading charges who claimed that because they didn't cooperate, the government took contracts from them and gave them to companies who participated.
It really is separate from the actual tapping and shouldn't be considered the same because the law specifically states that the government can pay for the change overs and stuff and make that happen. Access and taping are separate issues.
Then the government can tell the telecoms to destroy all documents relating to this. The telecoms can tell any future investigators that those records were destroyed, please refer to the current administration. Who have probably since moved to Dubai.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
That demand didn't stop Qwest from telling them to go fuck themselves. Being a pansy is hardly an excuse for breaking the law on a massive scale.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Dems caving? Nice choice of words especially when they control both houses. My choice of words would be that they are no different than republicans. And they played you for a chump if you voted for them.
Bush is unwilling to sign FISA without telecom immunity and has actually pocket-vetoed the same bill before because it lacked that immunity.
And yet Bush and most Republicans cry out that FISA is absolutely vital to protecting our country.
This leads us to one of two possibilities:
1) Bush feels that protecting the telecoms are more important than protecting the country, since he is willing to let us go without a revised FISA bill unless we give the telecoms what thy want.
2) The FISA bill is not actually that important for national security, but is more or less a trojan horse for covering their collective asses.
I suppose both are possible, and not mutually exclusive, but faced with this choice I find it far to unsettling that Bush would literally put our whole country at risk (as he himself claims FISA is that important) for the sake of a few dozen CEOs.
=Smidge=
I think this amnesty bill has done more to show Barack Obama's TRUE colors than any other vote in his career.
.
"A Vote for Change" my ass.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Like I said, if it was a request then I could understand not granting immunity. If it was demanded by the government, then it would be justifiable to grant them immunity.
I thought we discussed this the last ten times this came up? Complying with an illegal order is itself an illegal act. It doesn't matter if you are a soldier or operating a telecom. If your CO orders you to commit rape, and you do it, you are committing an illegal act. If your government orders to to execute an illegal wiretap, and you do it, you are committing an illegal act. See how that works?
The only way this is NOT true is if they actually pass a law that says you can be wiretapped without a warrant; THEN and ONLY THEN is it legal. It might be argued that some laws already passed give the government the right to tap any and all communications during an undeclared state of emergency or something; that is a valid legal defense if it turns out to be true. But NOTHING repeat NOTHING excuses complying with an illegal order. Well, except congressional action of course...
Of course the government is above the law, but companies should not be punished for government crimes.
WHAT?
WHAT?!>?! (emphasis, you know)
The government is most certainly not above the law. YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT. Or more to the point, it is made up of individuals who can be hauled into court.
Above the law? What the hell is wrong with you?
Were you paid to say this, or are you just brainwashed?
I say this to people occasionally, but people like you really ARE the problem with America today. "The government did it, so it must be okay!" Are you REALLY that deluded?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Come now, a sense of right and wrong is so September 12. We can't have our corporations bound by such petty concerns when there is money^h^h^h^h^h freedom to protect.
The government isn't above the law.
I don't see how that's possible. Logically, an organization holding the unique right to employ coercion as its means (that is the definition of government) must be "above" the laws which apply to the group it employs that coercion against (who would of course be criminals if they tried to employ coercion as their means). In other words, if the same laws that apply to you and me applied to government, then government couldn't exist.
The entire business of government is founded on its special ability to operate "above" the laws which apply to the people that government rules over. This is plain common sense, although it takes a bit of un-learning to realize (or accept) it.
Who needs the bill to pass? Bush, so he can continue doing what he was doing without fear of legal reprisals. Signing it isn't some sort of favor to Congress. They're not the ones who need it to pass, so they're the ones who should be dictating what goes in the bill.
You have to remember that this isn't about rational or legal order of events. It is about getting shorty. You see, when the president classified everything about the NSA program that wasn't already classified, the attention went to the telecoms because existing law gave the telecoms immunity if they were presented with legal documents. They expected that the telecoms would violate a completely unrelated law about disclosing national security secretes and classified information. But as it turns out, they are more scared of the prison time and won't do it.
This is more or less the equivalent of "Give me the information or I kill your girlfriend" in thriller movies. They are attempting to punish a seemingly innocent associate in order to put pressure on the administration so the documents would get opened up and they can get dirt on him. Now that a card has been played giving the telecoms immunity which makes the effort so far pointless, there is an uproar over it caused by half truths and purposefully misleading information. Entrapment doesn't matter to these people, they already passed on their morals in pursuit for political expectations. It is more or less a culture of hate that has taken the wheel of the bus, driving to some unobtainable destination. Reality doesn't matter unless it can fit within their neo-political world view. Reason and rational thought is out the window on this.
France not only seeks to implement 3 strikes and you're out ISP law, it also is trying to push it across Europe. So where does it listen to the public?
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/03/2156204
Actually they should. Even if the government is ordering a company to divulge something that is by law illegal it is that company's responsibility to refuse until they come back with a warrant or until they change the law to allow what they're doing.
If the company complies with the government to do something illegal wether the government is ordering it or just requesting it doesn't matter, they should still be punished to the full extent of the law.
Mod parent up.
Not true. Google "Nacchio" "Qwest" and "jail." The fact is that Quest's refusal made Nacchio a target for political prosecution at the ham-hands of Bush/Gonzoles' Do"J."
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
That they broke the law is the guess.
What looks like happened is they followed the law but because it would require that classified information be released to prove thier innocense the government wants to give them immunity.
That explaination looks to be the case because you have a whole lot of people who have seen the classified information wanting pushing for the immunity. You have people on both sides such as Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) head of the Senate Intelligence committee who activly pushing for the immunity. The biggest opponents of it are getting large kick backs from trial lawyers, who see this as a huge payout since the telecoms will not beable to defend themselves.
What both sides pushing for it thier is probably more to the story then was is being told in hate sites such as dailykos and huffingtonreport.
What if that policeman had a gun pointed at your head, or made an equivalant deadly threat towards you or a loved one? Of course your conclusion would change.
But that is essentially what the business of government does every day -- except that you don't see the gun unless you actively refuse to comply. As long as you don't try to fight in self-defense, you probably won't see that gun, or even the threat of deadly force which is always present.
Neat little trick, isn't it?
"but were scared of retaliation by the government?"
You are promoting a myth. None of the companies were scared. They went into it willingly.
I'm guessing for the sake of analogy the OP isn't implying that the cop then arrests you. The cop isn't interested in catching a bank robber he created, but robbing the bank, and he orders you to help him.
If they were forced to comply, or were convinced by a reliable source that the action was not illegal, they don't need amnesty -- they'd have a hard time being prosecuted.
Because anyone who wasn't Bogarting joints in civics class knows that the Executive branch (not "the government") has the authority to enforce the laws that are created by various levels of legislature. The Executive is not a king, does not have the authority to tell anyone to break any law for any reason, and it does not become legal when the President does it.
Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse for We, the People, so why should it be an excuse for telecos who have legions of lawyers on hand to advise them? All of those telcos could and should have told the NSA to go blow goats. You know, like QWest did.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
These telcoms have millions of dollars worth of lawyers on retainer for situations like this. They knew they where breaking the law. The presidential administration can't make them do anything illegal. In fact some of the telcoms told the bush administration NO [wired.com].
I think this amnesty bill has done more to show Barack Obama's TRUE colors than any other vote in his career.
... but looking at the other votes in his career compared to the alternative would still be wise.
Yes, its the ACLU and everyone seems to hate them... just #include <spinfilter.h> when reading the links.
I agree and I think a lot of people feel the same way, if you do then mod parent up please.
I think most Americans have no idea about the level illegality that our government has risen to; not just this current administration, (though they are by far the most egregious) - this telecom immunity thing is bad enough - but if you consider that is going on in the light of day now, just imagine all of the things that the general public isn;t aware of - there are many things you can find out about if you are a good researcher or read books that have been thoroughly researched (Jim Marrs, Greg Palast are two authors I highly recommend as their credibility is excellent) - if you are interested in the Bush dynasty there are many books but anything by Webster Tarpley is great, you can get his unauthorized biography of George Bush senior fo free on the web (as it has been out of print or supressed for a while now) with this link: http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm.
I am not sure if our republic is past the point of no return, but I fear that. I think people are putting a lot of hope into Obama, and I agree that he seems genuine, but the man is a politican and has taken votes or actions that would seem to be contrary to his stated message of change - like supporting telecom immunity. I fear that if he did get into office and really did try to make some real changes his life would be in danger; but what seems most likely s that he will get into office and be sort of like Clinton - not willing or able to live up to 10% of what he promised.
I thought that the people who really could have made some changes are people like Ron Paul and Mike Gravel - Richardson wasn't bad either - but until the issue with the media being a corporate/governmental mouthpiece is resolved, I am afraid that there may never be real change here.
Granting immunity for illegal, unconstitutional acts after the fact is not only wrong and unconsitutional, it sets a HORRIBLY DANGEROUS PRECEDENT - and this is one aspect people are not considering. IF this precedent is set - then government can basically make anything legal after the fact. If this sort of thing continues, eventually they won't even need to that to do what they like.
Are we a nation of laws or aren't we?
selectively, my friend; selectively.
I know that's not the answer you were looking for, but its an honest one. ;(
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
By delaying the amendment to a later date, it effectively removes the executive opposition because the Bush dynasty will be out of office in 2009. The telcos want their immunity while a sympathetic government is in place, but that window expires in 2009.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
For the government as an entity this may be so. However, the individuals that are our elected officials are not. I will not believe, ever, that if the president does it the it isn't illegal. Didn't work for Nixon so why is it working now?
All points of time and space are connected.
You are a broken clock. Godwin's law was invented for your ilk.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
Should he also have said that it prevented Clinton, Reagan and Eisenhower from running too?
Mod parent back up. And punish this troll mod in meta-mod.
The excuse "we were only following orders" has been rejected by civilized societies for over half a century, and it makes my stomach churn that so many /.'ers try to legitimize that position every time the telco immunity subject comes up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Defense
Of course. Any action forced at gunpoint - or other threat of punishment from a force-wielding body - should be granted amnesty.
If people do not choose to do the right thing, then we will only have the wrong thing.
You have a responsibility to do the right thing. It comes with the rights. What are the rights? The rights to spend the big gobs of cash that you get for ordering around the minimum wage peons below you.
"He told me to do it" is not an excuse. By the way, if a cop tells you to do something illegal, that is entrapment, and it is itself an illegal act. However, it is not necessarily a defense. You need to have some basic sanity checks - hence, sanity. If a cop tells you to do something that is obviously illegal you should know that it is wrong. And in this particular example ("rob a bank") there is extra-special no excuse because you're in a bank and it's easy to throw the apparatus of the state at them.
Do you really believe the things you're saying, or are you just stirring up shit?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
WHAT?
WHAT?!>?! (emphasis, you know)
The government is most certainly not above the law. YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT. Or more to the point, it is made up of individuals who can be hauled into court.
Above the law? What the hell is wrong with you?
Were you paid to say this, or are you just brainwashed?
I say this to people occasionally, but people like you really ARE the problem with America today. "The government did it, so it must be okay!" Are you REALLY that deluded?
Given the way his sentence read: "Of course the government is above the law, but companies should not be punished for government crimes.", I'd say it was an omission, and he meant "Of course the government is not above the law...".
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
That isn't always the case. Killing a person is illegal, A cop telling you to pull the triger and kill the bad guy because he is killing others can be seen as not illegal. In this case with the telecoms, the current law and the law at the time of the incidents gave the telecoms a complete defense against any civil or criminal prosecution resulting under any law if the government presented them with legal looking authorization.
The problem you having is that your taking moral offenses that are never legal and attempting to attribute it to something that under certain situations is perfectly legal. They call that a straw man argument which is based on a fallacy of all things presented being completely illegal. It is perfectly legal for the government to execute someone for a capitol crime, but it isn't legal to execute them for political expression and so on. Do you see a little difference there? Ok, Now when the executioner is presented with the same orders and documents that he would making the capitol offense legal but the offense was actually something that doesn't carry a capitol punishment, is the executioner liable for criminal activity? NO.. Why? Because he was working inside the legal framework that provides him with an exception to the not killing people laws.
So take your comparisons that you think make an illegal act illegal and put it in a real contrast or perspective. Try to tell me how a cop ordering me to pull through an intersection on a red light makes me guilty of a traffic offense of running a red light? Tell me how you can reconcile this with the fact that you want to use the same legal framework that allows these exceptions in order to prove your point and prosecute. You see, right or wrong, it just doesn't fit with reality.
This just goes to show the increasing gap between what politicians think American's want and what we really want.
I agree, however I still feel a duty to put forth this reality check for those who haven't had the opportunity to actually think about the logic of government, instead of simply accepting it like a religion which nobody dares question.
There is a reason why the power elite who make the decisions to kill innocents in savage wars (to pick one example) are now swimming in cash, when they should be swimming in a prison full of low-life scum.
In the rare instances when government does sacrifice one of its own, it is ultimately for the good of government, never for the good of the people government rules over.
Of course. Any action forced at gunpoint - or other threat of punishment from a force-wielding body - should be granted amnesty.
Hear that, Stephen Colbert? You can finally give in to those homoerotic urges, it's not really gay since you were doing it at gunpoint.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Anyone ever dare to wonder if they wiretapped Congress?
Just what would one do with private congressional tele-data?
If ever there was a time to put on a pair of rubber gloves, hold your nose, and actually contact the lying scumbag who calls him/herself your Congressman or Senator, now is the time. The misbegotten, money-grubbing, opportunistic corporate blowboys will do what's right ONLY in one situation: they're so afraid their constituents will kick their sorry asses out of office that they don't dare touch the campaign money, free trips and other forms of legalized bribery that the telcoms are offering.
If ever there were a few sites that needed a thorough slashdotting, it's the ones associated with an addy that looks something like, "Ima.Douchebag@mail.house.gov".
Go to town, folks. Maybe you'll even get the government, just this once, to do what's right.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
straight into an obamanation.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Note, the legislation failed: However, after lobbying by the public, the legislation failed in the National Assembly
...if it was a request then I could understand not granting immunity. If it was demanded by the government, then it would be justifiable to grant them immunity.
"I was just following orders" is not a valid defense.
Of course the government is above the law...
I hope to god that was sarcasm.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
That would make a GREAT 'reality' TV show! I'm all for it. If that would come to pass, I might even be tempted to watch TV again.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
s/2/0/; #There, fixed that for you.
Were that I say, pancakes?
In this case with the telecoms, the current law and the law at the time of the incidents gave the telecoms a complete defense against any civil or criminal prosecution resulting under any law if the government presented them with legal looking authorization.
If everything they did was legal at the time, then why such an intense need to make it retroactively legal now? Let them defend themselves in court.
Those are personal infractions of individual members of the government, not crimes by the government.
Term limits transfer power to those who are not bound by the limits.
The party leader. The president -for-life. The permanent state bureaucracy. The general. The diplomat. The lobbyist. The judge.
These are the only people who can maintain continuity in government. Develop expertise. Draft legislation. Contemplate long-term solutions.
They have staff. They have funding.
They are in constant communication with their sponsors and their peers.
The first-term legislator ends the year with a modest understanding of parliamentary procedure - and an appointment to the committee for the coastal defense of the Dakotas - where he can do no particular harm.
The American Republic was founded on rational self interest. The founders believed that principle too often leads to rigidity and excess.
In this sense, George Bush is entirely a man of principle.
No, the Government is not above the law. Please do not stop in the Bush droppings.
If you are ordered to do something illegal in the military, you are not held responsible. The OIC is held responsible because there is recourse for not following orders. The same goes for the government. If the government says, "Do this or else." You basically do it. Its considered extenuating circumstances.
Get your liberal Bush hating head out of your ass. We get it, you don't like the guy. Not very many people do like him. Now STFU and go read a book.
The Government broke the law by making the telecoms break the law. The government should be held responsible. Leave the telecoms alone - we don't need to give them any more reason for them to raise prices on us.
But again, no one bothers questioning his opponent on this issue, because already they know how corrupt and unaccountable he's become.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
"If a cop tells you to do something that is obviously illegal you should know that it is wrong. And in this particular example ("rob a bank") there is extra-special no excuse because you're in a bank and it's easy to throw the apparatus of the state at them."
You've concocted a particular hypothetical situation. So what? Why should we consider it archetypal? It is not. I can merely add my own modifications to your hypothetical which will destroy your conclusions. Let's say the person is forcing you at gunpoint, or that they are holding a family member hostage in a secret location. Your only responsibility is for your life and for the lives of those for whom you care. That is all that encompasses "doing the right thing."
"Do you really believe the things you're saying, or are you just stirring up shit?"
Yes, no. How about you?
If you are ordered to do something illegal in the military, you are not held responsible.
BULLSHIT! The Nuremberg trials established that "I was only following orders" is not an excuse. If americans don't accept that, well, tough.
I can agree in theory, although I could easily see the government withholding any and all evidence for "national security reasons", thus pushing all the blame on the telecoms. The true blame, however, still lies with the government. Any time you're up against a force-backed entity, this is a problem, so I would still be for granting immunity if they were in fact forced or coerced into complying.
The biggest mis-conception is that Telecom companies were victims in all this; that the big mean government threatened them and they caved in out of fear. This just isn't true. It's not like they did the wiretapping for free, they charged and profited from it. Furthermore, by playing ball they received other sweetheart billion-dollar government deals, while companies like Quest were specifically denied. In fact, one of the lesser publicized but even uglier aspects of this bill is that it actually pays some unpaid bills for the wiretapping project.
The really crazy thing about all this is that, in civil court, the telecom companies are claiming they didn't illegally wiretap their customers, whilst they simultaneously ask Congress for compensation AND retro-active legal immunity... for acts they supposedly didn't commit.
This whole thing is outrageous and an affront to justice on all counts. If this bill passes unamended, I fear for the future of our nation. (If we, the people, can even call it that any more.)
-Grym
That should read "of course, the government is not above the law". of course, of course.
A cop telling you to shoot a 3 year old in the face is most assuredly not legal unless other factors would lead you to believe that it were necessary to protect yourself or others from the threat of the 3-year old. You don't get to say " a cop told me to do it" and walk.
THe law you reference seems to indicate that law enforcement can ask for wiretapping quickly in an emergency, but only if they provide justification for it within 48 hours of the tap. That is a far cry from "vacuum tapping" mass amounts of telecom customers, possibly with no justification ever given as far as we know now.
there is no reason why a congressional investigation should not proceed, and that requires no special favors done ahead of such an investigation.
Nice try though, apologist guy.
That was a typo. It should have been obvious, though, given the statement I was replying to and my use of "of course". But I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt.
I'm not sure why you mention Bush...
The political atmosphere is poisonous.
The candidates do not need or want the boat anchor - the parting gift from a lame-president and congress.
If you're not trolling, then all I can say is your username fits you like a glove.
I will not debate or argue with you for two reasons:
1. You are too stupid to waste time on.
2. "Never argue with a fool. Someone watching may not be able to tell the difference."-Unknown (from FamousQuotes.com)
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
"WHAT?"
You dolt, that was a typo on my part, which should have been obvious given the statement I was replying to and my use of the phrase "of course". Anyone who thinks the government is above the law is only doing so to save their asses because they are members of the government and they've done something wrong.
As for your spiel about illegal acts from illegal orders - there is a difference between forcing someone to do something at gunpoint or on threat of punishment, for which there is no way out, and telling someone to do something. If there is no threat to your life, and you believe the act immoral or illegal, you should not go through with it. But once your life or the life of someone for whom you care is in danger, then the only rational choice is to comply.
Then let them tell all in exchange for immunity. Granting them immunity by statute is simply an attempt to keep them far away from the public record and make any "special favors" for keeping quiet look like a better offer by removing the downside.
House democrats who changed their vote received pac contributions from telcos verizon at&t and sprint.
We have the best government that money can buy.
Sarcasm, no, brain fart, yes.
""I was just following orders" is not a valid defense."
Agreed. But, "I was forced to at gunpoint or threat of punishment and I had no other way out" is a valid defense.
Thanks! That's what I get for typing with one hand on the bus before coffee.
>This has never really been about making the telecoms pay either. It has always been about gathering evidence on the administration which sort of seems like picking on the retarded neighbor kid in order to force his parents out of the house so someone else can rob them. Or at least that's how I see it.
I think I speak for all of us when I say "huh?"...
The law to which you link provides for this defense with a reference to Title 18 Part I Chapter 119 Section 2518 (7). That allows for warrantless eavesdropping only when "an emergency situation exists," and requires that a court order must be presented within 48 hours of the start of interception. If the court order is not presented, the intercepted material is considered to have been obtained illegally and within 90 days the subject(s) of the eavesdropping must be notified that their communications were intercepted. (IANAL)
AFAIK, court orders were never obtained for these cases and the subjects were not notified of the interceptions.
There are lots of people involved, lots of 'good' they might like. One person's 'good' may well be another person's 'bad'.
Ditto for corporations.
Then, corporations are made up of people who are employeed by them, owned by other people.
So, I need to see your equations that balance these factors before I can accept that it is possible to "put the good of the people before the good of the corporations".
Otherwise, I have to consider the statement mere rhetoric, words devoid of meaning, communicating emotion and ideology, not facts or ideas.
"The Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, and nothing but the CONSTITUTION."
"With the telecoms all but assured of amnesty for their participation in illegal spying"
You can argue that it's unconstitutional (though only the SCOTUS can really determine that), but illegal? If the Congress passes it, and the President signs it, how can it then by definition be illegal?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
You've concocted a particular hypothetical situation.
No, that was the author of the comment that you replied to, which prompted my reply.
As you have proven that you are not actually reading the comments you are replying to, there is little point in continuing.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Yours is one of the rare posts that used the word "international" regarding this issue.
Everyone else is a complete fucking liar.
And while we probably don't agree on the issue, at least we can agree on the fact that only international calls were monitored.
At this point in the discussion, I remind people that governments reserve the right to search anything crossing their borders, and ask why they think phone calls deserve some special protections.
But that's asking people to think, and that is always a mistake.
Anyway, congratulations on using the word "international." Please use it to remind those around you that this is nothing but a baggage check at the border.
Let them defend themselves in court.
So now you are going to spend the people's money by having a trial and spend the company's (read: shareholding mutual funds, pensions & individuals) money to defend itself at a trial. If the act is legal then everyone benefits by it being declared as so formally.
If you have been paying attention you would know that the documents the telecoms need to show their actions were legal have been classified by the Bush administration as national security secretes.
That places the Telecoms in a position that they can't defend without breaking an entirely different law and the courts seeing the suits don't have the authority to grant immunity from prosecution which carries prison time. The administration went to court and explained this claiming that the documents were national security secrets which historically have caused the cases to be dismissed. A judge in CA said it wasn't good enough and the public had a right to see the contents of the orders. The administration has refused to declassify the documents because it would place national security at risk. It might be prudent to suggest that he is more likely protecting activities that might have been illegal and it has been claimed that the telecom suits were only an attempt at learning about those activities but all we have is face value in the reasoning stated at the moment.
In the end, we have an organization that isn't a government entity but works closely with the government in many aspects who isn't allowed a fair trial by default. It violates on the basic tenent of our legal system and people seem to be able to over look that if it allows them to get what they see as the bad guy. In this case, the bad guy is Bush and anyone he may have used in his actions.
If you look at the so called immunity bill, it doesn't actually provide immunity. It provides a means for the administration to certify if it presented orders or not and if they were legal or not. If they were legal and there was a court order, the case automatically gets dismissed. If they weren't followed through on or if they relied on the AG's authorizations, then it goes to a special court of abuse to determine if the government actually presented a legal looking document. If that is true, then the case get's dismissed. Under FISA, provisions allowed the AG to present authorizations without a court order given that one would be sought. It really isn't the Telecoms' fault if that follow through was never implemented because the follow through is after the fact.
Anyways, don't take this as some form of rebuttal. It isn't. It is a description of the events leading to the current situation which on itself leads to a little different light. The laws in place at the time provided a complete defense for the telecoms if they were presented with authentic authorization even if they weren't legal. This is mostely why a lot of the democrats are breaking ranks and voting for the immunity. Look at the bill itself. I have to link that way because the links won't stay valid for long. Select the 1st entry then scroll down to the title II protections. Notice how it provides for the AG to certify it's actions without divulging information the would be considered top secrete or a national security "state secrete".
As I understand it, it failed within France, so now they're trying to implement it via the EU (where it will, incidentally, also apply to France).
Agreed. But, "I was forced to at gunpoint or threat of punishment and I had no other way out" is a valid defense.
No, it actually isn't in the U.S., nor should it ever be.
Obviously this would allow for all sorts of loopholes and cascading responsbility of actions. "Oh, yeah, I went in that store and stole money from the cash register with the cashier at gunpoint, but a guy in the parking lot told me he'd shoot my kids if I didn't. No your honor, I don't know what happened to him, he must have run off, but I swear he was there!"
Obviously without evidence nobody is going to believe you, especially if the circumstances are also against you. I fail to see how that makes your argument universally true, given that it only makes sense in your one specific scenario.
Which means this was not the case, or Bush is pushing this just to protect himself.
"No, that was the author of the comment that you replied to, which prompted my reply."
My bad. So rather than say "you've concocted", I should say "you've accepted". There. Done. The rest of my statement I stand by and await your response.
"As you have proven that you are not actually reading the comments you are replying to"
Neither I nor you have proven any such thing. All that has been shown is that "accepted" is a more correct term than "concocted" in that specific post. What any of this has to do with the discussion, I am not sure. It seems like an evasive tactic.
From context, I'm guessing he meant "the government is not above the law". If he thought the government was above the law, there wouldn't be such a thing as government crimes. Please do not be confrontational when you're not certain of someone's opinions.
But, "I was forced to at gunpoint or threat of punishment and I had no other way out" is a valid defense.
This is utterly irrelevant to the case in question, though.
The government wasn't going to kill these companies if they didn't comply. They would have had to take them to court. If the order was illegal then the companies would win their court cases, and thus would not suffer any consequences. Even if they lost, what would they get, a fine? They have no excuse for not having done the right thing. Their survival was absolutely not at stake as you imply.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
Grand Jury immunity has and will always be a lever to force people to talk when they refuse. It works like this:
1) The Fifth Amendment protects you from making testimony that may incriminate yourself.
2) Grand Jury immunity means that whatever you say, you will not be prosecuted, effectively negating any Fifth Amendment shield (you cannot claim the Fifth in Grand jury testimony).
3) If you lie, you will be thrown in jail for perjury. If you do not talk, you will be thrown in jail for contempt to a maximum sentence of the length of the Grand Jury (several months).
Grand Juries have often been used to compel testimony on political issues, as a form of Star-Chamber.
Seems to me that if the Telcos get amnesty then a few lawyers will make money filing suits.
If they don't get amnesty then an orgy of lawyers will get rich.
What would the average Joe get? Nada, zip, nothing.
Hurricane Island Outward Bound
OB
Jesus christ, I replied to a guy before telling him not to be confrontational, but he was fucking diplomatic compared to you. LOOK AT THE CONTEXT. It was very, very likely to be a typo. Don't be such an asshole without looking closely at what somebody's saying!
No, the Government is not above the law. Please do not stop in the Bush droppings.
If you are ordered to do something illegal in the military, you are not held responsible. The OIC is held responsible because there is recourse for not following orders. The same goes for the government. If the government says, "Do this or else." You basically do it. Its considered extenuating circumstances.
Get your liberal Bush hating head out of your ass. We get it, you don't like the guy. Not very many people do like him. Now STFU and go read a book.
The Government broke the law by making the telecoms break the law. The government should be held responsible. Leave the telecoms alone - we don't need to give them any more reason for them to raise prices on us.
The problem is, giving the telecomms immunity without a deal that they will sing like canaries when asked is a bold faced attempt by Bush and company to bury whatever evidence the telecomms might have on him.
Or do you still believe, despite evidence to the contrary, that this warrantless wiretapping only started AFTER 9/11?
Suppose I order CmdrTaco to do something illegal, and then CmdrTaco does it. Is he not responsible for his actions? Any "orders" I give him are really just requests; I have no actual authority over CmdrTaco.
The same goes for the U.S. government and AT&T. The government doesn't have that power and authority. It was merely the U.S. government, not the Emperor Of The Universe, who asked them to break the law. AT&T was perfectly free to just say no. They didn't do it. They chose, of their free will, to do it. They were persuaded, not compelled.
Your doing it again. The cop isn't asking you to shoot a 3 year old, he is asking you to shoot an attacker who is harming someone with mortal intent. The only separation might be that the person harming another who you were ordered to shoot is doing so in self defense too and justified.
Lets keep apples to apples comparisons here. The government can legally request the telecoms do something specific and the telecoms aren't legally liable for it. If the government acts in an illegal manor but still presents the telecoms with the same legal power, then the telecoms have done nothing different then they normally do. For some reason, you want to take Action X which might be defending a life and turn it into action Y which might be outright murder. That isn't proper in this because the telecoms continued to do action X which is legal except that the people who ordered it to happen weren't operating under the same legal operands. Let's look at it another way. If you posses counterfeit money, you are only guilty of counterfeiting if you participated in making them or knew they were counterfeit when obtaining them. When you receive them as change from a normal transaction, you are not guilty of counterfeiting. Why? Because receiving change in transactions is a normal and legal activity and the person presenting you the change made it appear that it was still normal and legal. When the government presents the telecoms with normal and legal documents authorizing the taps, the telecoms aren't guilty of violating the laws. When the government forges those documents and presents them in the normal and legal ways, the government violated the law and the telecoms didn't violate a law.
Read it again. I apologize that I provided the wrong link to you. Here is a proper link. Look at section d 1. It says
Now, we all know that the FISA laws allow the AG (and it's officers) to authorize a tap and then get the warrants later. This was the case before any patriot act and was used by Clinton in the 90's to do physical searches on the OC city bombings. That would fit both the definition of a legislative authorization, or a statutory authorization in that at the time the authorization was presented, it would have been legal. It would have only been illegal when the AG failed to follow through on it's later obligations to get a warrant after the fact or comply with some other provision of the laws.
Section d also states
So it seems that if section 1 is true, then they have a defense under the law. The problem is that all the related documents have been classified and they can't present them without violating another law concerning state secretes which carry considerable jail time. This is problematic because we are activly denying a fair and legal defense to the telecoms. It seems no different to me then stacking a jury or fabricating evident to convict an innocent
Valid point and I concede that in this situation, they were not forced, and so should not be granted immunity.
Yes, I linked to the wrong page.. Look at this instead.it is 2520 not 2518 I intended to present.
I don't think I can edit that link after the post so I'm expecting quite a few comments like yours. I guess I should have not only checked the link but read what was on the page to verify it went to the right page.
Anyways, look at section d and pay attention to the part that says is a complete defense against any civil or criminal action brought under this chapter or any other law.
I'm sorry about the confusion.
Yeah. Convince the electorate that some unprovable and improbable injustice has been done them and you're ready to go the the polls, or to court for a class action suit. Just like the grandstanding demagogs like Dodd and Ried like it.
I presented a link to the wrong law here. It is section 2520 d we need to look at instead of 2518.
The telecoms are private companies. The government has no right to "order" private citizens to do anything against their will without due process of law (read: JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT).
The government didn't do this legally, the telecoms' legal departments knew damn well, and so did their corporate officers.
They willingly engaged in criminal conspiracy against the American populace, and the only way to make them think twice before sleeping with sugar-daddy government is to hit them where they'll notice it: their pocketbooks.
Republicans argue it will discourage cooperation with law enforcement, and that's the whole god damned point. They deal with OUR private information, and should give that up when the government pries it from their cold, dead fingers!
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
For some reason, I have been linking to the wrong law. You should be looking at 2520 d instead.
(d) Defense.-- A good faith reliance on--
(1) a court warrant or order, a grand jury subpoena, a legislative authorization, or a statutory authorization;
(2) a request of an investigative or law enforcement officer under section 2518 (7) of this title; or
(3) a good faith determination that section 2511 (3) or 2511 (2)(i) of this title permitted the conduct complained of;
is a complete defense against any civil or criminal action brought under this chapter or any other law.
... even sent his campaign a few bucks. Then I saw how he voted/felt about this and I changed my mind. As The Who sang, "Look at the new boss, same as the old boss."
I say it's time for a revolution (no I don't mean using weapons and stuff), I mean:
LET'S CLEAN HOUSE AND GET ALL THOSE FUCKERS OUT OF THERE!
I agree. To extend my statement, if they were forced, coerced, or tricked into complying, they shouldn't be found guilty and don't need amnesty; if they weren't, they shouldn't get amnesty. You don't get to make illegal actions just because someone in "the government" asked you to.
The immunity provision is aimed primarily at keeping the investigation from happening at all, not mainly at protecting the phone companies. By making it not subject to trial, there will be no discovery, no embarrassing evidentiary discovery, and no embarrassing rulings against the government.
If the only purpose of the provision were to protect the companies who were arguably coerced into this, a more limited provision could suffice, like putting stringent monetary limits on any liability, or even guaranteeing that the government rather than the companies will take responsibility for any monetary damages.
But that's not the purpose: Bush doesn't want the trial to happen at all, because it's effectively him that's on trial.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Senator Barack Obama said Thursday that he might âoerefineâ his plans for a phased withdrawal from Iraq after meeting with military commanders there later this summer. But later, he hastily held a second news conference: to emphasize his commitment to withdrawing all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.
I've read a couple of other commentaries on this issue - as well as, y'know, the article itself. Let me sum this up for you:
Obama: I want to get our troops out of Iraq within 16 months.
Republicans: Oh my God, what an idiot! That'll cause chaos!
Obama: I will, however, continue to listen our commanders and refine our plan on the project.
Republicans: Ha! See?! He really ISN'T pulling out! He's flip-flopping!
Obama: Uh, no, I still want our troops out in 16 months. I just reserve the right to make small changes to that plan where necessary.
You did read the article, yes? He's not backing away on it. He says, right there in the article, twice after the original comment, that he wants the troops out of Iraq, that he wants it to happen during his presidency. The reason he had to make a hasty second press conference on the issue was that he admitted to not knowing 100% what was going to happen, and his opponents lept on it as an admission of imperfection.
"(He) secretly doesn't want to get saddled with a quick withdrawal." Which is why he advocates for a withdrawal over the course of 16 months and he's going to listen to advice from his commanders on how to make the plan run smoothly. I fail to see the issue here.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
If you have been paying attention you would know that the documents the telecoms need to show their actions were legal have been classified by the Bush administration as national security secretes.
I'm well aware of the complexities involved... as you obviously are as well.
If you look at the so called immunity bill, it doesn't actually provide immunity. It provides a means for the administration to certify if it presented orders or not and if they were legal or not.
But there's the rub... it's not a power of the executive (or legislative) branch to determine whether or not an activity was within the law. Between everything being secret, and the provisions of this bill on top of it all, they have effectively usurped that power from the judicial. It sure seems like effective immunity, if not explicit.
If they were legal and there was a court order, the case automatically gets dismissed. If they weren't followed through on or if they relied on the AG's authorizations, then it goes to a special court of abuse to determine if the government actually presented a legal looking document. If that is true, then the case get's dismissed. Under FISA, provisions allowed the AG to present authorizations without a court order given that one would be sought. It really isn't the Telecoms' fault if that follow through was never implemented because the follow through is after the fact.
Not being a lawyer, it's difficult to come to a complete understanding of the big picture, but the way I parse the text, the court review only comes into effect when the AG gives unsworn testimony (per USC section 1746 of title 28 referenced in 202.b). 202.a doesn't explicitly require sworn testimony from the AG - only "certification to the court". Perhaps sworn testimony implied? Otherwise, a rubber stamp from the AG is all that's needed... again keeping all the power inside the executive.
It's unfortunate when any entity gets stuck in legal dilemmas like this, but it seems to me that the complex nature of the issue makes review even more important.
Which is where the state secrets privelege becomes such a problem... obviously, there are situations where secrets are vital to the security of a country, at least for a period of time. But how can abuse be prevented when investigations into abuse can be halted in their tracks because everything's a secret? I don't pretend to have an answer, but congress seems more intent to sweep everything under the rug rather than address the issue.
Business as usual, i suppose.
I only hope the author of the parent can get his tongue dislodged from his cheek. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongue-in-cheek
So now you are going to spend the people's money by having a trial and spend the company's (read: shareholding mutual funds, pensions & individuals) money to defend itself at a trial. If the act is legal then everyone benefits by it being declared as so formally.
You know that saying... "Freedom isn't Free"? Neither is justice, and monetary expense should not justify abandoning either.
If I recall, the defendant can subpoena the document (no, classified documents are not immune to subpoena) and the government can cancel the subpoena by dropping the case.
Glenn Greenwald already wrote about this issue over at Salon.com. He writes, "Rockefeller's claim that telecoms can't submit exculpatory evidence to the court is flat-out false, an absolute lie. There is no other accurate way to describe his statement. Under FISA (50 USC 1806(f)), telecoms are explicitly permitted to present any evidence in support of their defenses in secret (in camera, ex parte) to the judge and let the judge decide the case based on it." So it sound like this is not much of an issues.
But, of course, even if it were an issue the proper approach would be to provide a mechanism for them to present this evidence (as Sen. Feinstein's amendment, offered to an earlier version of the bill this year, to put the issue of legality before the FISA court might have done) or at the most extreme do as Sen. Specter's amendment (again offered earlier this year) suggested and make the government the defendant on the suits. Just granting a blanket immunity is clearly an unnecessary solution to this supposed technical problem. And, as I said, Greenwald (a former lawyer) suggests this problem is already solved by current law.
First of all, it's clearly ridiculous to paint the wealthy and quite politically powerful telecom corporations as "the retarded neighbor kid". Secondly, if they knowingly participated in illegal activity violating the privacy of thousands or millions of their customers I think it is about holding them accountable. And, as you said, that's the only scenario under which the liable under the law. This is also about using this as a tool to unearth evidence to hold government officials who engaged in criminal activity responsible. Sadly, this is necessary because the Department of Justice that would usually investigate a crime is controlled by the same people who ordered the illegal activity.
Any person who thinks someone should be held accountable for this illegal activity can't rationally support full immunity. One can argue for some compromise to deal with the technical issues that might exist, but just sweeping it under the rug is not acceptable. This is a matter of protecting civil liberties. This is a matter of maintaining the rule of law, demonstrating that we do not accept Nixon's premise that when the president authorizes it it's not illegal. Finally, it is about maintaining the balance of powers between the separate branches of our government. FISA was set down by the legislative branch to counter the excesses of the executive; if the legislature now allows the executive and those who aided it to brazenly violate those laws then it undermines the balance between the two branches.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
But unless I'm missing something, none of those appear to be the case here... 2518.7 is specifically the law that has been broken, as the requirements set forth:
... may intercept such wire, oral, or electronic communication if an application for an order approving the interception is made in accordance with this section within forty-eight hours after the interception has occurred, or begins to occur.
were never met.
The problem is that your looking at the telecoms as a branch of the government. It isn't. It is a taxi that provides a service that the government can take advantage of. If you are taking that taxi to commit a crime, the driver isn't implicated in that crime unless you somehow inform him of your intent. So when you the taxi driver, drops the government off at a house and asks you to wait five minutes, they then go in a assasinate someone without legal justification and you effectivly provide the getaway car, you didn't break the law.
Similarly, the law presented says that if a good faith reliance was made to determine if the wiretap authorizations were provided by a statute or legislative authority, then the telecoms aren't implicated in the laws that were broke. You see, they were presented with a legal document that said we have a right to do X, provide the service for X. The telecoms looked and said Yep, the law says you can present this to us and provided X. Now the government fails to follow through with their obligations and get the warrant that you pointed out, it doesn't entrap the telecoms into the crime because the crime if any was commited after X was provided.
That is why 2520 says:
A good faith reliance on--
(1) a court warrant or order, a grand jury subpoena, a legislative authorization, or a statutory authorization;
is a complete defense against any civil or criminal action brought under this chapter or any other law.
It is saying that if they were presented with the legal papers according to existing law, they have a complete defense against any action brought under any law
In other words, the telecoms would have had to known that the administration was doing something illegal when the authorizations were presented. This simply isn't the case as the telecoms contend that they were presented with legal documents and the government failed to follow the law making the taps illegal. And if the telecoms were able to present the authorizations, they could use this defense.
The so called immunity bill only reinforces this concept when the order were presented and the telecoms can present them. When the orders are classified which effectively bars the telecoms from presenting them in court, under the immunity bill, the documents go to a special court of abuse that checks them in front of a camera by justices with appropriate security clearances which provide an avenue for them to be legitimately verified without disclosing national security secretes. The abuse court then certifies if the telecoms were presented with a legal document according to the law at the time it happened. If this is the case, all suits over it are dropped(because existing law gives them an out). If it isn't the case, the suits go on as usual with the exception of the AG being able to declare that they didn't authorize surveillance on certain people. If that is the case, then the evidence presented by the plaintiff stands on it's own grounds and the case moves on accordingly.
The immunity bill is more or less just a way for the telecoms to use an existing defense that they would normally have if the documents weren't classified. And it does this without revealing any state secretes in the process.
That has been attempted and a court in California rejected the dropping of it yet the government still refuses to allow the information to be used. Here is something on it, although slanted a little, it provides a good picture of the case.
The government did not order them to do it, they *payed* them to do it. Some telecoms refused to cooperate, or dropped out of the program after things got ugly as well, so there is nothing to suggest coercion was involved.
And before anybody brings up 9/11 panic as a defense, the program was started by the *first* Bush.
That said, as it stands, the entire FISA bill needs to be brought down, not just the retroactive clause. Allowing the government to spy on anybody they want for a week without judicial review is insane.
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
It's intent isn't to allow the administration to declare something legal. It is to allow the administration to declare if it had provided authorization that appeared legal. This is an important concept because the bill only addresses if the telecoms would have had immunity under the existing law. If the administration presented them with authorization that was consistent with existing law at the time, then regardless of the ultimate illegality of the actions, existing law gives the telecoms a complete defense. The bill doesn't make anything legal that wasn't. It simply clarifies if the government presented themselves in a way that existing law provided relief over.
In this state, the certification only acknoledges if another step needs to be performed. It doesn't need to be sworn testimony at this point because it is simply directing it to the proper channels. Under the same part, section 2 says
This means that if the certification is made, under the part you are concerned with, it goes to a court of abuse of discretion for review to ensure that the rubber stamp isn't employed to protect someone.
The orders and statements (which would be sworn at this time) would be subjected to
(1) review such certification in camera and ex parte; and
(2) limit any public disclosure concerning such certification, including any public order following such an ex parte review, to a statement that the conditions of subsection (a) have been met, without disclosing the subparagraph of subsection (a)(1) that is the basis for the certification.
This doesn't limit review, it limits prosecutions against people who can't mount a defense they would already enjoy. If the state secretes wasn't in place, the telecoms would simply show the orders authorizing the wiretaps and claim a complete defense under http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002520----000-.html >section d 1 of 2520 with this law. It says against any suit brought under that law or any other law. So there wouldn't be any civil review outside of disclosing names and dates that the government contends if a state secrete necessary to the national security interest of the US. A proper review should be done in congress and care should be taken to discern actual secrete information necessary to that goal and simple cover ups of illegal or potentially illegal activity. But as 2520 points out, no review would be made other then presenting the authorizations and dismissing the suits. This law provides for that but keeps the sensitive information classified.
Minor nit.. I believe it's 2520.d.2 that is applicable, not .1.
And I do understand the catch-22 facing the telcos. But it seems that - at a high level - this is doing more than protecting them; that it's also legitimizing the AG's violation of 2518.7. I'm unaware of any other method than a civil suit (since the AG certainly won't be filing criminal charges) to find out what the hell happened for those 6 years - so this is effectively removing any judicial oversight, putting power solely in the hands of the executive (through a complicit legislative - hence the backlash). If the telcos were truly acting in good faith, they shouldn't have a problem convincing any judge or jury, even if they can't produce physical documents. If nobody can testify to seeing those documents, than I would certainly argue that they did not act in good faith.
In any case, that should be up to the courts to decide - not the executive.
Also - thanks for such a well thought-out discussion... this has unquestionably been one of my better experiences on slashdot.
Thank you so much for making the point about the insane precedent this establishes. It was enough to finally make me get off my butt and call my senators about it.
For those who haven't called:
If you're a US citizen, you can go to https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?alertId=389&pg=makeACall and fill in your zipcode to get your senators' phone numbers and a script to read to them to indicate your opposition to the FISA Amendments Act and support for the amendments that remove the telecom immunity from the act.
A troll? You idiot, Colbert makes the latent homoerotic comments all the time. It's all part of the joke.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
So I Googled "Nacchio" "Qwest" and "jail." and the first couple of links all state something to this effect "Nacchio, convicted of 19 counts of insider trading, also was fined $19 million and ordered to forfeit within 15 days the $52 million he made from illegal stock sales."
The BBC states "Nacchio was found guilty of selling shares ahead of bad corporate news, and hiding information from investors. Thousands of shareholders lost money as Qwest's share price slumped from $60 in 2000 to $2 in 2002."
I assume you are implying that this is related to him refusing to work with the NSA. OK, maybe the DoJ did a little more digging then they normally would have, sure it's not fair, but if he broke the law then he should pay the price (Just like we want with the Telcos). If he really did hide information from investors, then he got what he deserved.
Of course you could be implying that the charges are completely bogus and he was framed in retaliation for his refusal. If that's the case, lets hope he has a brother who is a structural engineer and willing to get a hell of a lot of tattoos :-)
I called my senator and used the script on the EFF site. That's about all I can do right now.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
The thing is a president has to be presidential. The job is to lead and basically tell the bureaucracy what to do. Making choices that single one group over another is not presidential. The president's job is to lobby congress for laws, and run the executive branch. Just like the president of the company you work for, he doesn't worry about the little stuff.
The thing is, we have a case where a president is blatantly favoring his, his vice-president's, and his father's buddies. At least Clinton kept it under wraps. But this is what happens in this country, and why we replace the president every 4-8 years. It's amazing we can move the head guy that often and still be so stable politically.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
Hermann Goering, 1945.
If my would have worked the way I wanted, it might have been clearer but alas I screwed that up to. Anyways, d 1 says a "legislative authorization, or a statutory authorization;" which I think involves the AG's authorizations as prescribed by the FISA legislation. It perhaps could be covered by both scenarios which is even more scary that they don't have the ability to use something that seems so obvious to both of us.
Do you hear what this is saying? I mean your basically saying that persecuting an innocent party in order to get back at the government is the way to go. That sounds like you think it is right for me to cost you millions in court fees just to find out if your parents were honest in some business arrangement that you weren't involved in. On many levels, this just doesn't seem right.
The suits should be brought against the AG. The criminal charges should come from congress after they complete a comprehensive investigation- perhaps with an independent investigator. But I think you might also be suffering from the corporate fallacy that unit working for the whole are the entity of the whole. The fact is that if the government did violate the law, it would have been done by people in the government. The officers of the AG change all the time and new AGs can take the previous officers to task for actions they participated in that was not legal. The structure of the organization doesn't shield people from their own actions just like in a corporate environment when someone at a company breaks a law.
I'm not sure you understand the gravity of the situation. When something it classified, you can't even acknowledge the documents without coming into contact with laws protecting the classification. In other words, they can't even make the claim they exist with any specifics other then a generalized statement about having had them presented. When Person X is names in a suit, saying anything specific about person X being listened to would put them dangerously close to problems with the law even if the only thing said was we never tapped them. This is because the entire program is classified and giving any information is an affirmative one way or another. About the only thing they can do is refuse to comment. There is a reason why military and government agents says either "i'm not privileges with that information" meaning they don't have any information on it or "I can neither confirm nor deny" any comments about something specific.
And it isn't like no one can testify. It is that if they do, they face prison time. That's what makes this so problematic and requires vehicles to verify outside of normal routines. We are basically saying that because our judicial system require a fair trial, even though we aren't allowing a trial to be fair, we need to persecute some entity in order to go after another entity because the fairness of the system is at stakes. Or in other words, two wrongs make a right somehow. It seems more wrong to me then any gratification that can be achieved by the outcome.
I agree but I don't think this puts
President Obama: "Hello, this is President Obama Telecom CEO: "Hello Mr. President, what can I do for you today." President Obama: "The CIA, NSA and the Mossad have presented me with incontrovertible proof that there is going to be massive bio war attack against several US cities in the next 3 weeks, and we really need your help." Telecom CEO: "Excuse me Mr. President, when you were a Senator, didn't you suck up to those move on dot org shits and vote to let your Jihadist loving ACLU comrades sic half the ambulance chasers in Frisco on us? President Obama: "Well uh, I uh .."
President Obama: âoeMichelle, hand me some more of those Cipro caps, please.â
There are any number of problems with the legislation - so many concerns about the whole thing, horrendous government transparency, serious constitutional violations, etc. This whole blow up over the immunity portion is just plain stupid.
Vote Quimby.
my apologies; I piled misunderstanding on top of assumption in my prior response. your stance is very thoughtful and thorough, and thanks for posting it.
The government can make anything legal after the fact. Pardons are inherent in the executive branch, and while political backlash may happen, the actual pardons will stand and be legal.
Anyways, d 1 says a "legislative authorization, or a statutory authorization;" which I think involves the AG's authorizations as prescribed by the FISA legislation.
An AG request AFAIK would be neither legislative (as the AG is executive) nor statutory (It seems FISA is the only applicable statute) - but seems to fit perfectly within title 18 2518.7, referenced in 2520.d.2. Where this becomes important is in 2518.7.a - assuming it's true that these requests were made for mass wiretapping, it would be difficult to argue mass "conspiratorial activities threatening the national security interest". I'm sure the vast majority of international communications would most certainly not fit under 2518.7.a. If this is true, the requests were illegal, and the telecoms are not protected. We'd need to take it to trial to find out. Which brings up:
Do you hear what this is saying? I mean your basically saying that persecuting an innocent party in order to get back at the government is the way to go. That sounds like you think it is right for me to cost you millions in court fees just to find out if your parents were honest in some business arrangement that you weren't involved in. On many levels, this just doesn't seem right.
Yeah, I haven't been very clear there... My biggest problem is that the new FISA is assuming they're innocent. Qwest denied the wiretaps, and no action was taken against them by the AG. I know the Nacchio thing gets complicated, but if the requests were truly legit, he had nothing to lose and everything to gain by accepting them... yet he didn't. To me, this gives enough reason to doubt the requests - it at least gives the appearance that these requests were not protected under 2520.d. Something we'll never find out with automatic dimissal.
And it isn't like no one can testify. It is that if they do, they face prison time. That's what makes this so problematic and requires vehicles to verify outside of normal routines. ... I agree but I don't think this puts the decision in the executives hands.
And the Nacchio trial is a perfect example of how this is a "fix" for the symptom, and avoids the problem entirely. And I'm not sure I understand how this doesn't put all the power in the executive... Under 202.a.1.A, the only part that's really in dispute is ii.II (this is getting nuts):
(ii) described in a written request or directive from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community (or the deputy of such person) to the electronic communication service provider indicating that the activity was--
...
(II) determined to be lawful;
Keeping in mind the many other things that the office of the AG has "determined to be lawful", this sure looks to me like it's putting the power to determine whether or not the telecoms were breaking the law in the hands of the same ones (potentially) asking them to break the law.
Anyways, thanks for not jumping into a knee jerk defensive posture like many do here when presented with something that doesn't agree with their ideals. Maybe I'm focusing on what I see as the hypocrisy of demanding that the courts be the final arbitrator and not allowing the telecoms to have a fair day in the courts. To me is just seems a lot like throwing a suspected witch into the water, if the sink and die, they were innocent. If they float and live, they need to be killed because they are a witch. Can you understand why I have a problem with that?
Absolutely, I just think the FISA amendment is the wrong way to go about it. It seems that even if the intent is not to remove judicial review, there's at least enough room for the AG to wiggle out of it. I completely agree that the core of the issue is the whole state secrets thing... I just don't think section 202 is the right way to go about it. Perhaps use the FISA court or set up a new similar secret court to hear these cases (preferably the latter, with judges appointed by congress). There just has to be some solution better than 202's "because the AG says it's okay".
The problem they are going to have is that the U.S. Constitution already states unequivocally that Congress cannot pass retroactive ("ex post facto") laws (Article I, Section 9). Our problem is how to get (that part of) it to the Supreme Court so it can be struck down.
Doesn't that bother you that many times, and esp. so recently, the US is vetoing and voting with IsraÃl, while 180 other member countries, including at times even the 52nd state, UK, vote in the other direction?
All of them antisemites or something, I guess.
I think we are at a difference in our understanding of the definitions of terms being used. I'm under the impression or understanding but can't find a legal definition of both to provide clarity one way or another, that an "legislative authorization" would be where the legislative branch gives an agency power to make rules in order to enact laws passed. This would be like the EPA or DOT being able to make rules that have the effect of law in the intent of carrying out a law. A legislative authority in this case might be if the law says the AG will decide who has the ability to order a wiretap without a warrant if these conditions were met. A statutory authority is a law that gives someone specific authority or one that by statute, demands something to be viewed in a certain way. An example of that mught be statutory rape, where Rape is traditionally defined by one person objection to having sex or sexual relations durring an act of it. Statutory would forgo that requirement and mandate that rape be charged if there is an age difference greater then a certain number of years or if one party is younger then a certain age regardless of their consent to the act. Statutory authority would be where a law gave someone the authority to request a wiretap.
In either case, it wouldn't matter if the AG was in the executive branch because it is the legislative branch specifically give those people the legal power to conduct the wiretaps. That is why d 1 is relevant. The FISA laws at the time gave the AG the statutory authority to order a wiretap if the AG followed up and got a warrant 72 hours later if an American person was a party to the call, or 15 days later if we were at war, and up to one complete year if no American persons were to be a party to the calls. Now, when he presents the authorization, regardless of future failings, he had the statutory authority and the Telecoms received the request with that in mind until a later date when the AG failed to request the warrant and it became an illegal wire tap. But that if after the telecom fact which should mean that they weren't part of the law breaking even though what they did could be against a law.
Now mass wire tapping seems to be a misnomer. What the government did was request the telecoms to route all overseas communication lines through a single or set of building so as less agents would need to be employed in conducting the searches. It served two purposed, one, it limited restrictive abilities of lesser developed telecoms that couldn't readily provide the type of access they were wanting and two, it calmed logistics problems where instead of having 20 agents in 20 areas running from town to town attempting to catch all the calls they were ordered to get, you had 20 agents in one place capable of monitoring 100 or so lines at once if necessary. Granted, it was true that surveillance increased enormously when the program was put in place, it isn't really like the mass vacuuming of calls that it has been represented as. They are still targeted monitoring and we know this for a couple of reasons. One, it would just require too many people to effectively monitor everyone without discretion. Two, we already have legal programs that randomly monitor calls (echelon) and listen for key words to trigger a recording and notify agents. All we wou