Slashdot Mirror
EFF Sues NSA, President Bush, and VP Cheney
VisualE writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) will file a lawsuit against the National Security Agency (NSA) and other government agencies today on behalf of AT&T customers to stop the illegal, unconstitutional, and ongoing dragnet surveillance of their communications and communications records.
The five individual plaintiffs are also suing President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Cheney's chief of staff David Addington, former Attorney General and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and other individuals who ordered or participated in the warrantless domestic surveillance."
Wow, that's... big.
How many trial did the EFF lose ? IIRC, they are usually fierce and study their cases carefully before going to court, am I wrong ?
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
About time...
Ray Beckerman!
*DUCKS* :)
. . . a 5% stake in A.I.G. in compensation.
I was going to get the first post, but the extra surveillance on my connection slowed me down.
when you can't legally get at the evidence?
The plaintiff's need to prove they were harmed in some way. And proving they were harmed will require divulging state secrets.
Case dismissed.
It is really about time someone stepped up and handled this. Go EFF.
Live Free
NSA Press Conference: We have decided to take over the EFF in hopes that their participation with our goals will aid in furthering the United States' interests in National Security. We have assessed their allegations and decided that they were unwarranted and unfounded. Thank you for all your cooperation and we appreciate all the help from the leaders of the EFF.
EFF @ Gitmo: Fuck, I don't want a cock-meat sandwich...
-SaNo
To see exactly how this administration completely blows this off.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Thank god someone's standing up to this BS. Although their mileage with this suite may not end up being what we hope, it's definitely a move in the right direction.
This should end well... new "liberty" laws enabling this very type of behavior in 5, 4, 3, 2....
Maybe it will work better than 'Jam Echelon Day'. Besides, they've moved a bit beyond that, tapping U.S. Internet traffic directly.
The NSA is EFF'd.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own.
Begin countdown to NSA "discovery" of an EFF-Al Qaeda/Russia/Democratic Party link...Now.
Ubiquitously - A Ubiquity Developer Community
When everyone in power is such a successful (not necessarily good) lair how can we even have a justice system?
I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
Mark Twain
Thats going to "work"
If those bastards can steal an election and every freedom American's have then what makes you think this piddly lawsuit is going to do anything?
We need lead, of a different form. Both for US foreign image and those of you having to live it.
Good luck with that one. I hope EFF wins!
GO EFF!
Shameless plug alert: Game server control panel
If you were ever planning to donate to the EFF at all, now might be a good time.
http://www.eff.org/support/
What's the value of information that you don't know?
Who voted for this as well?
...class action suit. /me Raises hand.
...the EFF people start dropping dead after having shot themselves in the back of the head with a shotgun?
Drill baby drill - on Mars
After all, what is the EFF?
A loose coalition of lawyers who are absolutely useless.
I'm going to try to sue Nicholas Cage for being such a bad actor
This is all true, but at least they are fighting regardless the odds, someone has to.
I take it you can prove you were harmed by this? I'm an AT&T customer, and can't begin to think of a way to prove I was listened in on (much less harmed). Without actual harm, you (and I) have no standing in a class action lawsuit.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
...who else would have been chortling in the background of all those 1-900 calls?
proves to be evidence collected illegal and is thrown out does that also make it admissible?
Friday:
All Members of EFF Mysteriously Vanish
What is going on with the other EFF case? The ACLU and the EFF both sued, and I forget - one sued the government and the other sued the telecoms. The AT&T case was thrown out because of the state secrets thing, and the other... I haven't heard anything on. What is the status of that case?
Didn't congress aprove a law that actually give the dictators in place immunity for this sort of things?
I thought that you couldn't sue the President of America.
RutSum.com
No, they gave the telcos (AT&T, etc.) immunity.
Enjoy the latency added to your connection. You know.. that 1ms on every packet adds up. :D
Can all fish swim?
So a Soros front organization sues the Bush administration right before the election? Maybe this is politically motivated.
I've called Afghanistan quite a few times. Surely they listened in on that a time or two.
but to stick the "Proud Member" sticker that EFF sent me after my latest donation to my forehead, and go around living like that. will be a bit hard - its a bit large. but eh ....
Read radical news here
Recall that the telco immunities in the latest FISA passage only affect the telcos, not the government. If they're bold enough, the telcos may be able to help push this forward (since they're no longer able to be held liable, all this does it make their customers more comfortable by earning back their trust). Telcos likely have tons of documents they could publish (without invading customer privacy), teasing the courts with what must be loads more that could be secured with the appropriate warrants.
As to suing the government, I believe you actually have to petition for the right to sue ... which may be problematic when there's such obvious intent to keep this under wraps. I'm sticking with my pessimistic intuition that this won't come to light until all the relevant parties have retired or been removed from office (I hope I'm wrong ... heck, there's just barely enough time for an impeachment process, too!). Since this hurdle appears to have already been passed, there must be something resembling support -- hark, did the Dems grow a backbone?
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
Whats the EFF going to do, Nothing, Thats right Nothing. Its just a ploy to get your money and recognition. This same thing was apart of the 6406 and nothing ever happened. If Congress could of made good on at least one thing especially this they would of done it. Clinton got impeached because guess what the congress had a case and evidence. Since the congress is practically full of Tort lawyers and they couldn't make this impeachment happen I really doubt EFF's ability.
But there is one positive point. The free market always does work better then then Government so maybe this will happen.
We have an ever increasing need for a reputable organisation such as the EFF fighting our corner. Governments and corporations have woken up to the digital revolution, and they all want their piece of the pie - often at our expense. They are one of the few organisations I donate monthly to, and I'm not even a US citizen / resident. They really do try and make a difference online and as evidenced by this story, there are no opponents too rich or powerful for them to take a stand against.
... Also, they gave me a "free" t-shirt. \o/
She's built like a steak house, but she handles like a bistro....
News =
"The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) will file a lawsuit against the National Security Agency (NSA) and other government agencies today on behalf of AT&T customers to stop what they allege to be the illegal, unconstitutional, and ongoing dragnet surveillance of their communications and communications records. The five individual plaintiffs are also suing President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Cheney's chief of staff David Addington, former Attorney General and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and other individuals who ordered or participated in the warrantless domestic surveillance."
- Alaska Jack
Looking forward to see how this one turns out
An unopened e-mail can't hurt anyone.
Of course I was harmed by this: Emotional distress. Paranoia. I don't feel safe to talk on the phone. I'm afraid to buy any scientific or pyrotechnics books because I'll be sent to Gitmo without any trial... I can think of a number of things that can bring this situation to the point where it is clearly a serious detriment to my health and well being to have the government spying on all of my communications. (Not that I actually currently feel that way, but they are all legitimate reasons to sue.)
Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
You get your wish. It is a class action suit. Based on witness testimony and documents, undisputed in the suit against AT&T, a fiber splitter was put on AT&T's main network conduits, sending a copy of all traffic to a secret room under control of the NSA.
So indeed, we allege that it is quite likely that typical AT&T customers (and others) had their traffic intercepted, without a warrant, by the NSA.
In the civil case (still going on, though dealt a blow through the passage of an act of congress extending immunity to the phone companies) the law specified monetary damages for customers to whom this happened. In the case against the government officials and agencies, whom we allege also participated in this unlawful activity, other forms of relief, including getting it to stop, are sought.
Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
Need I say more?
Why don't people understand that the bill that granted "telecom immunity" really was a compromise because it added the requirement that the president personally authorize the action? This bill is what opened him up to liability--now the EFF is able to sue the government agencies and officials even if they can't win against AT&T.
For all the good it will do you. I expect nothing will come from these suits. Everything will be swept under the national security/state secrets rug.
No, they gave the telcos (AT&T, etc.) immunity.
However, the Constitution specifically forbids Congress from writing any ex-post-facto laws, which includes retroactive immunity.
That means anyone who voted for the telecon (no typo) immunity bill has broken their oath of office to defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic.
I'm sure plenty of people will still vote for Obama even though he willfully voted for an unconstitutional bill (not that McCain is any better). It just shows you that neither party is a true opposition party when it comes to screwing over the American people.
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
EFF begins fundraising campaign targeted at Bush haters.
I didn't know that. I was not previously aware that the immunity bill was unconstitutional, on top of being morally bankrupt.
Learn something new every day!
The invasion of such a massive amount of information for terrorist clues is beyond our processing ability. There was once an underground railroad during teh break from slavery days which used song in the cotton field to pass the word along. Certainly terrorist communications would be at least as wise to hid their communication within common language use, where only the participating parties know what is really meant.
What the tapping was used for with so the Bush admin. could better know the attitude of Americans so as to know what to say and promote in the media to get the majority of Americans on the bandwagon the war on Iraq for 9/11 or at least know what misinformation to give out to pacify American mentality against what Bush and company wanted to do.
It wasn't specific information but the more general sampling of the American population and the American spending indicators.
They'll just never publicly acknowledge it, and claim "Executive privilege" on anything that comes near them.
The EFF might as well sue th flying spaghetti monster or santa claus for all the response they'll get.
No, it does not include retroactive immunity.
These are the ex post facto laws, according to the Supreme Court in Calder v. Bull :
-----
1st. Every law that makes an action , done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action.
2nd. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed.
3rd. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.
4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender.
----
A law making something NOT a crime when it was a crime when committed is not covered.
(incidentally, the Supreme Court has pretty much chipped the 3rd one away to nothing since Calder v. Bull)
These are the ex post facto laws, according to the Supreme Court in Calder v. Bull :
...
4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender.
----
A law making something NOT a crime when it was a crime when committed is not covered.
The telecom law that was passed allows the Administration to give the Courts a letter affirming that the Administration told [Company] that they were not breaking the law.
How does that not set the stage for "different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender"? And it plainly alters the legal rules of evidence required to convict.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I hope Bush's/Cheney's/Gonzales' next gig out of the white house is in trial; followed by doing time.
that I donate my $10/month to the EFF.
And I even got a spiffy EFF hat. =)
GO (real) FREEDOM!
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
However, the Constitution [wikipedia.org] specifically forbids Congress from writing any ex-post-facto [wikipedia.org] laws, which includes retroactive immunity.
WRONG!!! the ex-post-facto clause means that you can not create a law and then charge people for what are now crimes that were committed prior to the passage of the law. It does not address the decriminalization of an act in the past. If that were the case, a presidential pardon would be unconstitutional.
Bush will declare this a National Security matter, it will be sent to secret FISA courts, and it will be held up there forever.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Because the ex-post-facto thing is one way. If the law made it easier to convict, it would be ex post facto. Since it makes it harder to convict -- that is, you still need all the same evidence that you needed before to convict, PLUS you need the lack of this letter -- it is not covered.
If there was ever an article that needed "goodluckwiththat"...
go EFF. fight the power!!!
You can donate here.
you had me at #!
Purely curious: Wouldn't the telecom immunity fall under the fourth? The idea is to allow telecoms to acquire evidence in an illegal fashion, and then make it legal after the offender has been tried?
get your ticket here and jump on to the W00t W00t train!
You are incorrect. Calder V. Bull deals with Article 1 Section 10 which deals with STATES. Article 1 Section 9 deals with CONGRESS of the US.
Of course that doesn't stop any court, including the supreme from changing the meaning of words in the constitution.
Don't you remember when Scalia recently went on ABC saying that not all torture is cruel and unusual punishment?
If you don't think that giving retroactive immunity to corporations who spied on American citizens wasn't what the framers had in mind when they wrote in Article 1 Section 9, "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." you must be smoking something.
Please go read what Thomas Jefferson had to say about the judicial branch and maybe you'll be able to get a somewhat clearer picture.
Also remember that the supreme court has ruled that how much wheat you can grow on your own land is "interstate commerce" and can be regulated by congress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
https://secure.eff.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=DON_splash
EFF donation/membership page. "Get swell EFF gear with your donation!"
If it was impossible, then if when prohibition was repealed, those convicted under it would still face jail.
You can ex-post-facto make something more lenient, and essentially give people a "Get out of jail free" card. You can not make a law that specifies a harsher punishment for a existing crime, and have it apply to those already conviceted.
If that were the case, a presidential pardon would be unconstitutional.
A presidential pardon is not an act of Congress.
I thought the Army/Navy/etc is suppose to protect the Constituion, even from the President. If this is the case, then we shouldn't have to pay taxes for military spending until they correct the situation.
I think we should reintroduce a practice done in one of the ancient Greek city states (Sparta or Athens). When the city leader left office they held a "trial" based on the actions he took while in office. If his tenure was unpopular enough, they banished him for a period of time. It was a normal and automatic part of leaving office. If we did this, where could we banish Bush?
Well besides that the constitution is the highest law in the land. No statute or simple bill by congress trumps the constitution. The 4th amendment is pretty clear about what the government needs to do to search "papers and effects" that logically would apply to data as well.
The Constitution does not have any teeth to actually do anting to someone that breaks it, however if something is found to be unconstitutional then that does not mean it stop being a law at that time.. it means it was never a law to begin with.. so if that is the case then immunity could have never been granted at all.
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
To use the journalist angle, did knowing that you were being watched, that all your CPNI data would forever be in their files, change your behavior in a detrimental way?
If yes, then you were harmed. Journalists covering unpopular foreign issues might throw out stories they risked their lives to get, if they knew that they were taking a greater risk by talking about it on the phone.
Police work is only easy in a police state.
START HERE:
This is the new, updated, Republican and Democrat House/Senate Political Hit List On FISA.
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Bush_Dog_Opposites_Those_Who_Got_it_Right
~hylas
The presidential pardon is an on-going tradition so Bush will pardon, in advance of any trials, pardon all of his cronies... you can expect to see a pardon for ALL of those players when the next president swears in as well.
When everyone in power is such a successful (not necessarily good) lair how can we even have a justice system?
Because a successful lair is hard to find.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
I think the point that folks are trying to get across is the the telecons weren't just gathering all that data to find out if Joey down the street prefers "girls gone wild" or hairy man sex. They were gathering it to be used as evidence against everyday folks. So I personally don't see how it could NOT fall under the 4th clause unless the courts rules that everything gathered by a telecon between the dates covered by the immunity are completely inadmissible in court. This is like cops going to a landlord and saying "We don't have any warrants,so why don't you use your keys to snoop in everyone's apartments and come back and tell us who we should bust for drugs". But as always this is my 02c,YMMV
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
i dropped another $20. i occasionally jump in and drop some bucks.
Read radical news here
...please add Tom Cruise and William Shatner to the list.
look sharp people !
Read radical news here
And it's a known fact that there were/are rooms in other COs around the country.
I want to know if they've caught foreign terrorists with it or not so far. And I want to know if they've used it for political purposes, as was reported a long time ago. If that's the case, hang 'em.
Everyone knows about the rooms now, and therefore can take measures to avoid them. This includes terrorists probably. So they are probably not useful for their original purpose any more. At this point they are increasingly likely to be used for new purposes, as their controllers see fit (in order to justify continued funding).
But, if they drop the program publically, the terrorists will move back to the Internet and operate freely. And that means they can organize faster and without, you know, complicated craft and stuff.
The scary part is that the records can't be made public because there's ongoing operations. So, they can't be reviewed by a trusted third party who can determine if they are legit or not (IE: terrorist planning an attack vs. political campaign strategist for the other side).
It all comes down to the brass tacks of risk management. We all need to realize there's a risk to living in this world. We should focus on the positive risks--IE taking chances in the hope/faith that things will be better--rather than the negative risks--IE we're going to die oh noes. So, the idea that we can't go back is false. We can. But we have to be prepared for things that might happen.
But definitely this is a time for science and mathematics and not religion and emotion (as it was around 2001).
Cool! Amazing Toys.
Pelosi, the spineless wonder of the Democrat leadership. All these blatant breaking of laws by the executive branch (Loss of millions of emails, secret meetings for our Energy policy, warrantless wiretaps, breaking of Geneva convention on torture of prisoners) and she has said impeachment is off the table.
So much for checks and balances between our branches. We now truly have an imperial presidency.
I'd actually go with the 5th Amendment (The right to not incriminate myself) as the subject to throw out all of the information collected.
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
Well at least they got the defendants right this time... (not the EFF, but anyone in general who didn't like the idea)
I always said AT&T was the wrong target since they've basically got their nads in a vise grip with the NSA, FCC, and who-knows-who-else ready to turn it if they don't play ball. "Don't want to play? You don't REALLY need that license for this or that... or that spectrum of frequencies vital to your business model.. DO YOU?"
I had a sucky sig.
Say you're representing a client who wishes to remain anonymous because of the government spying on him.
Name: John Doe.
Then, like the RIAA do, just tell the court to get a list of the people the government HAS tapped (via the ISP's cooperation: they did this for the RIAA witch hunts) and they'll then tell the court which one it was. ;-)
It's not unconstitutional for the reasons you say...
However, even if it technically isn't unconstitutional I'd argue that it is definately against the intent and spirit of the constitution. Telecom immunity is nothing more than an attempt by the legislative branch to remove the check that the judicial branch has on the executive.
We have checks and balances for a reason. We shouldn't be supporting those that work to remove them.
And on a related note... Obama's vote to weaken our system of checks and balances made me start to seriously consider McCain.
But then McCain picked (or had picked for him) that nutjob for a VP... *sigh*
What about Congress that voted YES to allow Bush and boys to do this clearly unconstitutional warrant less wire-taping. Obama voted YES on this as well.
Carter started it back in the day, Clinton continued it, Bush embraced it, Congress said it was illegal, Obama said it was bad...then voted for it. Aren't we all lucky to have spineless pigs ignoring the Constitution.
Your primary concern should probably be tin poisoning given the composition and extreme size of your helmet. Do you really believe that you're interesting or special enough for anybody to care about?
You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
There is a little problem with the idea of "risk management". One that most people do not understand.
Nobody in any sort of public capacity wants to be the guy that has to stand in front of a group of parents and say he is real sorry about their children, but at least they didn't suffer. Much. It is a career-ending speech, and everybody knows it. You can change the parameters of it is little bit and be talking about wives and husbands, or mothers and fathers instead of children but the effect is the same.
And it doesn't really matter if you were the one making the decisions. Making the speech is what does you in. Where exactly is Rudy Giuliani today? He made a nice speech on 9/11 or thereabouts, but he couldn't really DO anything.
OK, with that firmly in mind, just about every politician knows that they do not want to be in that position. They need to do whatever it takes, however much public money is required to be spent, to ensure that they do not ever have to be in a position of making that speech. There is no sense of "risk management" about it. The risk is unacceptable at face value, at least to the politician. Folks can talk about the "risk" of terrorism all they want, but as a general class Americans will not put up with any level of casualities from something they perceive as being unnecessary and not an "act of God".
You can point out that in 2001 there were 10 times as many traffic fatalities as those that were killed in New York City. It doesn't matter. The same level of "blame" is not attached to traffic fatalities.
Pardons are not laws.
I am anarch of all I survey.
Prove that YOU suffered from extra latency, and you might have cause for a Class Action. If not, you're wasting your time.
Note that I do NOT approve of this sort of thing. Anymore than I approve of traffic cameras and similar elements of the nanny state. Nonetheless, there are legal requirements to make a class action lawsuit, and DAMAGE is one element. No damage to YOU, no Class for you.
And "damages" require something vaguely measurable. Not very measurable, but vaguely. Even asbestos class actions require that you have some sort of loathsome disease (even if the disease was NOT actually caused by asbestos, but only could have been).
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Do you really believe that George W. Bush really gives a rats ass about what the public opinion is on what he believes is the right course of action? One of the significant differences between Bush and Clinton is that Clinton would take a poll to decide what to have for breakfast whereas Bush apparently pays absolutely no attention to such polls at all.
For better or worse, George Bush believes he (and some advisors) know the right course. It may be the wrong course in many people's opinion, but in a representative democracy that doesn't really matter. Since the 2001 the US government has not been run by opinion polls whereas 1993-2000 it clearly was.
You may not like the course that George W. Bush is leading things in. But I see no evidence whatsoever that any sort of public opinion serves as a guide to this administration.
As much as I don't care for his poor leadership. It is important to point out that the NSA's version of carnivore was in development before Bush took office.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Is that you, Dick?
<sarcasm>I'm sure the founders meant something different in those two sections by the exact same words "ex post facto law".</sarcasm>
I'm pretty sure that the framers were far more worried about activities being made retroactively _illegal_ than retroactively legal.
I guess the EFF is finally showing their ignorance. The NSA has far better lawyers then anyone can afford. I sense the demise of the EFF shortly.
um......'Nuff said?
http://tech.slashdot.org/tech/08/09/18/0332218.shtml
I converted a bunch of widely scattered pdfs to web pages with links a while back, all relating to this issue.
The collection is here:
http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/nsa.html
The downloadable collection is here:
http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/012006_HouseDemJudBriefing.zip
EFF v. ATT Complaint (initial filing):
http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/att-complaint.html
ACLU v. NSA :
http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/aclu-nsa-complaint.html
- dcm
See, for example, the Lautenberg Amendment.
"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
--Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca
A funny day will be afoot when Bush and co-horts, as seen on ABC-CBS-NBC-CNN-AssoicatiedPress and any other news service cameras, are served warrents, hand-cuffed, shackled, and led away by a quadran of US DoD, NATO, INTERPOL and others, on charges of crimes against humanity, murder, thieft, impersonation, violation of the Constitution of the United States of America, at the inaguration address of Barak Obama -- the next President of the Unites States of America.
A bonfire of the Vanities thus.
With Great Toodles!
The trial is not going anywhere. It's a waste of good money that COULD be used for things like fighting software patents, where some headway might be made...
After EFF started its mad BDS inspired tirade a year or two ago, I stopped donating because I felt any money I sent was going down a hole to no effect. I am considering re-donating again but stories like this do not help me feel my funds would be used wisely. So instead I send money to the FSF instead.
I wish someone else would either take over the EFF, or start a group just like the EFF with more sense.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
...not all torture is cruel and unusual punishment...
Well, if you do it as a matter of routine, I guess it'd cease to be "unusual"...
Couldn't the president simply 'pardon' himself and the others?
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Not that I actually currently feel that way.
Way to totally miss the point.
Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
I have about 1500 customers using ATT bandwidth right now. Without saying too much, I might be able to show damages, but its a VERY long shot, and probably not worth it. But, yes I understand how the damages thing works. =)
Can all fish swim?
...tap my phone. Put surveillance on my house. Monitor my websites. What the f*ck do I care? You'll discover telemarketers calling me, me playing video games, and good old American porn on my computer. I'm boring. I don't break the law, and I'm not cheating on my wife. Knock yourself out. I guarantee after two days of monitoring you'll die of boredom.
The Telecoms already had immunity. They just couldn't use it because the Bush administration classified everything and they would be in violation of another law if they attempted to use the immunity that they already had.
Now, if you knew as much about the new immunity law that you think you know about that Constitution and the oath of office, you will find that it isn't a blanket immunity. It is a process with a review that takes an allegation, has the AG certify if the government ordered the telecoms to do it, review that certification in secrete and if it matches out, the courts are instructed to drop the cases. It is not a blanket immunity or an ex post fact law, it is nothing more then a process to implement the existing immunity without divulging national security secretes or classified information.
I know people like to either act like they know more then they do or want to use things like this for political damage but it simple isn't an ex post facto law and it isn't any new immunity. And this law says nothing about either part other then they were able to come together to allow an existing law be used under extraneous circumstances that weren't conceived of at the time the original law was made. This has been thoroughly discussed, vetted and I'm not sure how anyone paying attention can still think the way you do.
The telecoms already had existing immunity if the government ordered them to do something and said they were legal in the process. This post facto accusation is bogus.
Title 18 PART I CHAPTER 119 2520 provide an affirmative defense that was present at the time of the NSA's TSP. The problem is that the telco's couldn't present the orders given to them by the government because they were all classifide as state secretes. This put them in the position of violating a law to show that they weren't in violation of a law. Of course that sort of catch 22 is unacceptable and is why congress supported the immunity bill which basically allowed a secrete court to determine if the government ordered a tap/search under a claim of it being legal. If that turns out to be true, they conceal the secrete or classified information and instruct the court handling the suit to drop it without disclosing any information.
The immunity bill isn't really anything more but a vehicle for implementing something that was already there when a precarious situation arose where the telecoms couldn't use their existing immunity without breaking another law.
Now, all the post facto discussion I have seen is sound too. But it doesn't need to be applied because the immunity isn't post facto/ex post facto, it is a patch to satisfy two separate laws that conflict in practical implementation without conflicting in spirit. In all cases, it isn't post facto like some people want you to believe.
Cruel and unusual have specific meaning in a legal sense and don't translate to your mental feelings. Torture has specific legal meanings too which also don't coincide with your mental feelings. When you have a legal scholar and judge of the highest court in the land saying that not all torture is Cruel and unusual punishment, he is saying that the definitions aren't intricately linked in any way and one could be defined outside the scope of the other.
This is what Scalia was addressing when making his comment and it is what both you and the parent completely missed in your comments. If locking up a pedophile for life who raped and killed a 5 year old in some bizarre attempt to satisfy his sexual desires is somehow all the sudden considered torture, it wouldn't automatically be considered cruel or unusual because we lock up people who rape and kill adults for life too.
Will this actually materialize into a civil case or die away in the thick fog of politics?
About Me