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.
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
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.'"
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.
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.
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!
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.
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."
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
straight into an obamanation.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
...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.
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.
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 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.
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
"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.
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.
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".
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!!
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.
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