Make no mistake; the current skyrocketing CO2 concentration is due to human emissions.
Actually, I think you are drinking too much of the cool aid.
There are many processes contributing to the Co2 increases that aren't attributed to Humans. Volcanic activity under the sea is responsible for a part of it. The sun is responsible for a part also. You see, the oceans are giant carbon sinks and they hold more Co2 when they are colder. The undersea volcanic activity as well as the increased surface temperatures trigger a release of Co2. There are other natural processes involved that caused the increases of Co2 too. While most of the Co2 is caused by human activity, not all of it is nor will it ever be.
No it doesn't. It's lifetime in the atmosphere is coordinated only with the saturation levels of the atmosphere. It's erroneous to think otherwise. The IPCC had to change some climate models because of this back in 2004 or so. It was pointed out to them that there was an increase of the dewpoint meaning more H2O was in the atmosphere.
The numbers do not suggest a percentage of the population with or without a car. I really have no idea where your getting your 23% at either. Please cite a source or explain your math on that.
Anyways, on the same page linked to, it says that there is 229,500,000 vehicles owned in the US verses 211,600,000 in the EU. That's only a difference of 17,900,000 or 7% less. Now considering that the EU is geographically smaller then the US by about 2,124,259 square miles (56.6% smaller), there is less need for a car by as many people. There is also the problem that the EU is not Europe or all of Europe's countries. But when we look at some of those countries in the list, we find that in the top 14 spots, those countries have at least one car for every 2 people or better. OF those countries, 7 or half of them are in Europe. of the next 11 countries, they are all within 8% of 1 vehicle for every two people and they are all European countries.
Europe is about the same as the US. The US has more vehicles but there is nothing drastically different in Europe. Most of the differences can be attributed to the smaller land mass and increased expenses in owning and operating a car in Europe- not because the EU people have magically discovered how to get rid of cars.
That kind of reform rarely can come from within. It usually takes external pressure and competition.
Let me correct you a tad bit here. I'm not saying your wrong but I don't think your considering a couple of things. Have you ever heard of "changing of the guard"? In about any organization, not just military, you have the old leadership who was set in their ways. Eventually, they get replaced by younger leaders who have a little different ideas. Change can and does occur within the parties, it just takes a long time for it to happen. In the mid 90's, we had a lot of this happen inside the republican party. The new advocates supported term limits, campaign finance reforms, fiscal responsibility and so on. Unfortunately, the old school had too much influence over them and the change wasn't permanent.
3rd parties can do just that... but only if there is a real chance they can compete
I will agree that third parties can effect change. However, there will never be a real chance that they can compete. Why, because to counter any third party threat, all the major party has to do is adopt a position similar and all the sudden the third party is negated to bitching about not getting time in the debates. The third part doesn't generally strike this up as a win, they attempt to distinguish themselves further from the major parties and all the sudden, everyone thinks they are a bunch of lunatics.
Third parties do not attempt to invest the grass roots levels of support needed to become as strong or popular as the major parties. Well, in Vermont they seem to be but that's really a rarity compared to the rest of the country. The reason why democrats and republicans have so much support and following isn't because we don't have special tricks with elections (I will expand more on that later), it's because they hold offices close to the people's homes and lives. Your sheriff runs on a party ticket, your municipal and county judges run on a party ticket. Even the local dog warden (read dog catcher) runs on a party ticket. This filters up to the state and federal levels and people look around them and decide they like or dislike the person or party they represent. Their only contrast is the other major party who took the time and effort to get into this position. If any third party expects to be a viable competition against the major parties, they need to be in this position- yet they refuse to.
Actually, it can happen. I just described one of the ways it can happen. However, you do realize that we already have had instant runoff elections and abandoned them don't you? The electoral college used to do the instant runoff and it's the reason why it's accurate to say that George Washing was unanimously elected as president when the electoral count doesn't reflect that. This was used to determine the president and vice president. It was changed later by an amendment into what we see now.
I don't like the idea of instant runoff, it will create more pandering and more lies then the current process enables. It's not some panacea for the third party because all the two major parties have to do is just place other people on the ticket and they will occupy the top two slots -meaning their guy will win. Of course the second guy would probably run under a third party name, but knowing he has the support of the major party or the major party has his support, then all you have is the illusion of a third party choice. And yes, this can easily be manipulated by the major parties which are little more then coalitions of former third parties wrapped into a common set of ideals. And most importantly, there is nothing to prevent that from happening again.
Yes, of course it takes compromise to get things done. But assu
Ok. Then I'll take my half a trillion dollars and stop investing it in the military. Seems like a much better tax savings than $500 million. $500 million is a rounding error.
Then take your half trillion and shove it in your ass for all I care. When we are invaded, we will just put you in the front of the line as fodder while our diminished capabilities work out a strategy. I mean if your not going to invest in the military, you shouldn't reap any of the rewards that people who do invest enjoy. these rewards are not having anyone invade us, protection of out people over seas, and so on. So grab your money and live without the military acting on your behalf, it doesn't matter to me.
It's not Colin Powell's fault that his party has become completely irrelevant.
Actually, it is Powell's fault for pretending to be something he isn't. And when taking race over party, well, that's the type of ignorance and lack of rational thinking we expect of democrats. And yes, that's what most republicans think of Powell. In the context of not bringing him up, they did more to protect him then anything.
Perhaps you need a definition for about as many. I didn't say it was exact, and nothing you linked to proved other then it wasn't exact. Outside the increased costs of owning a car in Europe, there is surprisingly high usage numbers comparable to the US.
And despite some or Europe's measurements being outdated by as many as 5 years in some cases compared to the rest of the of Europe, the US, Canada and many other nations listed, it all boils down to almost 1 motor vehicle for every 2 people in Europe verses 1 motor vehicle for every 1.5-1.7 people in the US and other industrialized countries. They are "about the same" in any normal interpretation of about.
Then take your 500 million and invest it however you want. Just don't take mine and invest it. Neither car company (old or new) should be getting government money. People like you are more then willing to invest and if their business plan was actually worth something, they could get their funding from private investors.
As for politics, Colin Powell isn't really a republican as far as most republicans are concerned. IF the WSJ stated he was part of the deal, then most people would just assume it was payback for supporting race instead of his own party in the last presidential election. I suggest that not mentioning his name did more to provide an innocent look then mentioning his name could of.
Common, let the guy defend AL Gore and the government giving him money to be spent in foreign countries. Why Burst his Bubble when he is on such a roll chastising Fox News and WSJ in order to deflect from Gore or the government. I mean common, what's a few lies from someone with such a noble cause as sticking up for the environmentalist democrat known for stretching the truth who used to be vice president and uses that to push his agenda to profit from his activism who is also getting funding from a cash strapped democrat controlled government in order to spend in other countries.
Can't we all just get along? (why to I feel like 10 cops just beat me simple?)
The two major parties right now are minor parties joined together. In order to get anything done, they will have to pact together once in power creating the exact same situation.
And that's beside the point that no third party is ever more then 15% different from the major parties. There is no aha, they're different. For 80% or better of all issues, it would be just like a two party system. Third parties is just a pipe dream. They will not change anything. IF reform needs to happen, it needs to happen from the inside out and with the major parties.
Knowledge and education wouldn't be seen bad or elitists if it wasn't for asshats like the GP going around a acting like they are better then everyone else. At least the dumb asses of the world find something like differences in culture to dislike someone but because someone doesn't know as much, that's fucking retarded. I mean seriously, there are plenty of educated and knowledgable people who are also religious and read the bible of some sort. How is that an automatice disqualifyer for being smart.
Yes, the problem is with asshats like the GP who tend to do associations with inanimate objects to put people down and attempt to raise themselves up at the same time. They are the reasons behind it.
I've often found that most people who feel it's necessary to tell people how smart they are result in being fairly stupid. It's the entire tear someone else down so you can feel better about yourself trick. I think the GP is suffering from this. One day, he looked in the mirror and didn't like what he saw so he puts others down in order to feel good about himself. It's the reason why shows like Jerry Springer is so popular, it's not because it's entertaining, it's because people look at the screwed up lives of the guests on the show and feel better about their own life.
Then why are there about as many cars on a per capita basis in Europe as there is in the US?
Or are you just making things up and claiming to speak for everyone?
BTW, enjoying life is a personal pursuit, why do you think you can tell people what they can and cannot do to reach this personal level of enjoyment? What someone needs and does not need to enjoy life depends solely on their enjoyment, not yours.
Yea, it just evolved that way and despite a century of grocery stores and not getting your food from the farm directly, it has not evolved back away from it. Go figure.
Subsidies are different from loans- gifts- or bailouts. That is because subsidies get a return which is whatever specific behavior they (the government) were looking for.
Take oil subsidies for instance, they aren't just gifts from the government. The oil companies have to do something specific to get it. In the last few years, it has been experimenting with alternative energy platforms and keeping unprofitable sites open. Generally, each subsidy costs more then the reimbursements so the oil companies are losing money on those projects by taking them, just not as much had they not had the subsidies. However, without the subsidies, the sites would have been closed down, the research likely would never have been done, equipment would have not been replaced and oil prices would likely be higher.
Subsidies get a result or work towards a result. Loans on the other hand is little more then a grant. The problems with the government giving loans is that other institutions exist to do that job. If they found it too risky to give a loan, then chances are that it is entirely too risky for tax dollars. This is ok when it's a person with bad credit attempting to go to school or something to better their abilities and make more income. It's not good for business models that can't stand the scrutiny of normal lending practices.
You evidently understand the justification for the lawsuit better than you want to let on.
And you obviously do not. Or at least your refusing to see the point being made.
I'm not saying a law wasn't broken, I'm not saying that they didn't have a case in a french court. I am saying that in a US or UK court, if they removed the contract between VNC and Edu4, then any third party could not know they were an intended third party beneficiary and wouldn't have a case. Only the copyright owner could bring suit because they would be the only party that could prove a contract existed between the two parties (GPL) that intended to benefit the third party. In the US and UK, you cannot say this product is typically licenses this way so it should be here too. You have to prove that a contract between VNC and Edu4 existed and that you were an intended beneficiary. With the GPL and copyright removed, only the copyright holder can declare it or the contract existed unless Edu4 volunteers the information at a later date. Baring an admision from Edu4, you simply cannot prove a contract between two other parties that you were an intended beneficiary of without the copyright owners.
What that means is, if I or you strip the GPL and copyright from a product and distribute it, the end user which is a third party will not have a legal standing for the case in the first place without the original contractors (read copyright owners). Once the copyright owners get involved for the fulfillment of their contract, the third party suit is not allowed.
Furthermore, I'm saying that under the current GPL, Edu4 could have installed the VNC software solely for their convenience and discretion and no software transfer would have taken place (section 2 of the GPLv3). The case in question revolves around a 2000 incident so it would be governed under the GPLv2's statements which doesn't have provisions for running software remotely. However, I'm not sure that wouldn't have changed in US court seeing how the VNC GPL notice claims or later versions. So it would appear that the third party claim would/could have disappeared under section 2's terminology of the GPLv3 when it came into effect.
For the 5 years in federal prison, there needs to be a few qualifiers like reasonably knowing of the violation at the time of infringement and commercial or private gain directly because of the unauthorized distribution. There is also a special condition for movies but it wouldn't apply to software. It's a fine line that may or may not apply depending on the circumstances.
Anyways, I agree with what you stated. However, the point I was making is that some advocates pretend that losing the code is the only option. What is comes down to is FUD created by GPL enthusiast furthered by outside entities wanting to increase the uncertainty of using products other then theirs. Do you remember the entire line of FUD over word processor documents using GLPed fonts needing to be open source because part of the font was embedded in the document making it a derivative work?
ok, first of all, the EFF is not a legal authority so their claim of illegal has yet to be determined. Second, the EFF was going after the rerouting of the communications lines through central locations and the storage of numbers which to date is completely legal under the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) as long as the government doesn't access it without proper justification. Finally, the EFF really has no idea of the scope and breadth of the secrete program- it's a fucking secret. Their initial lawsuit was an attempt to gain more information about it and their major claim is that it enables illegal activity or activity they claim is illegal. They have no proof that anything is illegal because despite any of their claims, the validity of them has yet to be adjudicated.
That being said, there is nothing to show that the scope of what the EFF is claiming is not in line with the courts rendition of allowable or reasonable warrant-less searches. The one article claims a court actually said they were constitutional because of measures taken to prevent abuse. Further more, the ACLU just lost their suit in which the court said their claims are that the violation is probable, not that it happened.
Furthermore, according to FISA, US persons can be US citizens.
If the telecomms only honored FISA granted warrants they would NOT need immunity. If they were really safeguards in place that prevent violation of the 4th ammendment then they do not need immunity either. They only need immunity if what they were doing was illegal and congress was trying to protect them post facto. I think that should be obvious to anyone.
Are you suggesting that the telecoms ignore the FISA law where it says that the president can through the attorney general, order a wiretap for up to one year under certain conditions? Or is your entire "only honored FISA granted warrants" inclusive of this legal warrant-less wiretap?
The problem is, they didn't use warrants, they used the orders as the FISA law allows. In this problem, a subject of the warrants were people that should have never been. The reason they need the immunity is because they are compelled by law to assist in the wire taps if they are presented certain documentation. This documentation includes FISA wiretap orders with absolutely no warrants at all. Now they have always had this immunity in title 18 section 2520 (d) that says if they were given the certain papers, it would be a complete defense against all criminal or civil actions. But wait, there is a problem here, the telecoms cannot present this documentation because they have been classified as national security secrets and disclosing them or anything on them would create a felony violation carrying 5 to life in prison and possably the death penalty.
Here enters the protect America act and the immunity clauses there. The immunity clause doesn't give blanket immunity for any and all actions that happened after 9/11. Instead, it creates a court of review, when a telecom is sued, they bring the documents to the court of reviews attention, they validate it with the AG or whoever authorized it, and then asks if it's still needs to be classified. Only then will the telecoms get the immunity. The new law is nothing more then a vehicle for the people who are legally compelled to assist the government in wiretaps and searches the complete defense promised in other laws.
However, the FISA laws do require a warrant to be procured within 72 hours, IIRC.
No all of them. there are provisions in which the administration could authorize a wire tap for up to one year and never obtain a warrant. These provisions is also where the problems come from.
The initial 'warrantless' tap is authorised as an 'emergency procedure' prior to getting the warrant, and information gathered from that tap is not allowed to be the basis if getting the wiretap.
No, one of the initial warrant-less taps followed how you remembered. That is also possible for non-FISA emergency taps too. However, With FISA, that was only in connection to US persons as defined by the law. Not all US citizens or people inside the US qualified as US persons. For foreign agents and foreign governments, a one year authorization without ever applying for or getting a warrant was always permissible as long as you take minimization precautions to ensure you do not tap US persons.
Now here is the provision that caused the problems for the Bush administration. This is the original 1978 FISA law which for out purposed, was essentially the same as in 2002 until the patriot and protect America acts amended it. When we look at the definitions of a US persons (subsection j) used by the law, we find that it covers almost anyone legally in the US and all companies incorporated in the US or unincorporated in which a substantial membership consist of US citizens. However, there is one exception, it denies the classification as a "United States Person" for the purpose of this law if any of the above is a corporation or association which is a foreign power as defined earlier in the law (subsection a (1)(2) or (3).
So we go back to the foreign power definition and see what is required to exempt someone from being a US person. We find that a foreign government or any part thereof whether the US recognizes it or not, a faction of a foreign nation or nations not composed substantially of United States Persons, and an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or government and to be directed and controlled by them.
Now, if you assume a foreign agent is a component of a foreign power, acting on the foreign power's direction, then we can see that a foreign agent (b 2 C and D) any person who knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism for a foreign power or activities in the preparation there of or anyone who knowingly aids and abets anyone or conspires with them in violation subparagraph A, B, and C.
Now whether this is legal or not is irrelevant because it sets the stage for the administration to issue wiretap orders for up to a year without ever needing a warrant. Now I'm not talking about if the administration was justified in their actions or not, but they definitely had the vehicle to order wiretaps without a warrant and the telecoms were compelled by law to assist. Section 102 says, notwithstanding any other law, the president through the attorney general may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this title to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period of up to one year if the AG certifies in writing under oath that: (it goes on to list several conditions, one of which is that no US person is party to).
Ok, now to wrap this up, the telecoms, if presented with a signed paper from the AG stating under oath that X, Y, and Z has happened, the telecoms are required to assist in the wiretaps and they can last up to a year before simply being renewed. We know that not all US citizens or people inside the US are considered US persons according to the law so it is extremely likely that the telecoms didn't know what they did was illegal until after the fact.
None of what I wrote means that Bush didn't violate the law, I'm not making excused for them. I can do that in a completely different way which makes FISA sor
OK, the TSA checkpoints are somewhat new since 9/11, but common, seriously, you havn't been able to walk onto the tarmack without a boarding pass or legitimate reason to be there since Yasser Arafat stareted the hijacking movement in the 70s.
As for the TSA checkpoints. There always were random inspections before crossing the hoover dam. They weren't permanent fixtures but the gate houses and crap was there ever since I can remember (95 is the first I drove across it) driving across it. When I was a truck driver, I was actually stopped and search at the damn shortly after the federal building in Oklahoma City was blown up. Of course as a truck driver, I'm sort of used to that because we get vehicle safety inspections, hours of service inspections, and cargo inspections all the time. The national guard has an extending boom forklift that can reach all the way to the front of a 53 foot trailer without the vehicle itself entering the trailer. They were looking for drugs one day (a dog keys off on the trailer), the had me unloaded, searched, reloaded with a DEA seal, and on my way in less then 2 hours. That was when entering AZ from California on I10.
The EFF suit was about ATT's cooperation with the NSA on taping Americans. The NSA has always stated that they only taped Americans who were on international calls with one party being suspected of being a spy or terrorist. There has never been anyone competently close to the NSA actions who have claimed otherwise and that includes democrats and republicans in the house and senate who were kept completely informed about the TSP from the start.
Now I'm going to mention FISA in which is always had allows taps and searches within the US borders and it has always defined US persons to be US people other then those working for/with foreign agents and government. So even FISA allows US citizens to be tapped within the US and FISA was specifically created because domestic law enforcement agents were attempting to bypass warrant requirements by using national security exemptions to wire tap their suspects.
Now, did you actually read the article I linked to? I mean it says "The three-judge court, which hears rare appeals from the full Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, addressed provisions of the Protect America Act, passed by Congress in 2007 amid the controversy over Mr. Bush's program of wiretapping without warrants. It found that the administration had put in place sufficient privacy safeguards to meet the constitutional standards of the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches. Because of that, the company had to cooperate, the court said."
They actually have used those types of tactics ever since 1970 when the original 1968 wiretaps laws were amended to force cooperation of the telecoms, landlords, facility managers, and so on. But, in the original Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, the telecoms and anyone legally compelled to assist the government in searches and wiretaps had a complete defense against any criminal or civil actions brought against them as long as they were presented with specific documentation described by the law (18 section 2520).
The problem that arises now is that documentation is considered classified as a national security secret. We can argue all day about if that action was to protect the administrations illegal acts or because of actual national security interest. However, that would be beside the point because the documents which are needed to prove a complete defense is classified and it would create a felony situation carrying 5 years to life and possible death penalty for anyone to disclose the information in it.
Now think about that. It's like the government issuing you a conceal carry license good for anywhere within the country and then claiming you will go to jail for longer then the concealed weapons charge if you present your license because it's classified.
The immunity law didn't really create any new immunity. It did little more then provide a vehicle for the telecoms and those who are forced to assist by law, to present their documentation that would give them a complete defense under existing law, in which they wouldn't be committing felonies in the process or disclosing national security interest.
If you look at the provisions of the immunity portion, you will see that it does 3 things. It creates a court of review that the telecoms can present the orders the government gave them, it validates these warrants by interrogating the agencies who issued them, and finally, it required those agencies to justify keeping the orders classified. Only if all three of those are met, does the court of review instruct the court holding the actions against the telecoms to drop the case and prevent it from being held in any other court.
Now on the surface, you may look at that and think it's completely retroactive. But lets ask a few questions here. One, why is an order or warrant required in order to get the immunity? Two, why must the agency who issued the warrant claim the information needs to remain classified.
The answer to that is because under existing laws, the telecoms already have a complete defense against any criminal or civil action if the government presented them with a document prescribed by law claiming they had a legal right to the information/wiretap. The problem they face is that the administration classified all of the orders as national security secrets and disclosing any information about them is a felony that could result in 5 years to life and possible the death penalty. The immunity is little more then a vehicle for the telecoms to realize the complete defense they already had.
There is no blanket immunity in the telecom immunity provisions from before the enactment of the law. All of the previous immunity is only realized when the telecoms would have already had immunity and the documents are classified making disclosing them impossible. If the document doesn't exist, no immunity happens. If the document is no longer classified, it's given to the telecoms with the instructions to present it as their complete defense under existing law.
Now your right, it's not a case of "A was legal, now it's not". It's also not a case of "A may not be legal, and we said we weren't going to do anything about it, but we've changed our minds". It's a case of "even if this was illegal, because the law forces you to assist the government when presented with certain documentation, you cannot be held liable to those actions". The immunity provisions in the patriot is nothing more then allowing the legal use of the existing immunity that was present before the passage of the act but impossible to realize without committing felonies and possible endangering national security.
The "unsettled legal question whether what the telecoms did was legal" is irrelevant for the purpose of the immunity law because we have said explicitly through existing law that because they are forced to assist when certain documentation is presented, they can't be held accountable for any actions resulting from that assistance. IT may very well be that what they did was highly illegal, but they still enjoy a complete defense.
They aren't gutted any more then they were in the beginning of the country. The first congress passed a law allowing border searches without warrants and they wrote the bill of rights as well as ratified them.
Oh really? Then why did the government pass a law which granted them retroactive immunity for their actions? You don't need immunity if you didn't do anything wrong. There was nothing in the Patriot Act which authorized telecom companies to violate the privacy of their customers. That's the central point in the civil suits against them. Ex-post-facto law is indeed unconstitutional, which is why the telecom companies can't legally be given immunity for their previous offenses.
Actually, title 18 2520 d gave the telecoms a complete defense against all criminal and civil actions. The problem is that the documentation needed to support this complete defense was classified as a national security secret meaning that disclosure of any of the information would result in a felony containing 5 years to life in prison with the possibility of the death penalty. The immunity law does nothing but provide a vehicle in which the claimed documentation can be verified without placing the telecoms in violation of this felony or disclosing national security secrets.
Just because you do not understand something, doesn't make it the way you want it to be.
Furthermore, the law of the land applicable to wiretapping at that time was the original FISA law, not the Patriot Act. The FISA law clearly and unambiguously makes it a CRIME for any U.S. government employee to engage in domestic surveillance without a warrant. The Bush administration and the intelligence agencies flagrantly violated this law. Why do you think it was referred to as "warrantless wiretapping"? This was clearly an impeachable offense, and if the Democrats were any less corrupt than the Republicans, anyone invovled in this activity (Bush and Cheney included) would be charged with the applicable crimes in the FISA law.
Yes, it was a crime. However, because the telecoms (and a number of other people including landlords and so on) are required by law to assist the government as ling as certain documentation is presented, those specific people are absolved from their actions in the crime. It's like a law that says you can't jaywalk being used against you when you run in the middle of the street to save the life of a toddler who wondered into traffic. OF course I'm not attempting to claim the telecoms saved any lives, I'm saying that a higher authority forced them to participate on something that was illegal (in this case the law was the higher authority) and under the facts of the situation, they can't be sued or prosecuted.
Now you can make this as partisan as you want. The fact is that the house and senate intelligence committees as well as their leaderships were completely in the loop on this and received regular reports concerning the TSP operation. Both parties were involved, both parties knew about it, and it didn't become partisan until it was convenient for an election.
Part of this whole "retroactive immunity" deal for the telecom companies was to make sure that no civil or criminal cases ever came into court. If there were actually a trial, it could potentially unearth evidence of massive criminal activity on the part of intelligence agencies. It took a very long time for government abuses in the Johnson and Nixon years to come to light. We can only hope that the full extent of the illegal wiretapping in the Bush years is eventually exposed.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The "retroactive immunity" which isn't retroactive was put in place in order to allow the telecoms experience the complete defense they already had without disclosing national security secrets. Now you can argue that the documents were classified as national security secrets in order to do as you claimed. I do remember certain groups claiming the reason they were suing was to get information about the government. But that information was held back long before any immunity was around and the Bush administration actually went to court a
But I'm 100% certain that it is wrong to retroactively make those actions legal. They should and must remain illegal. This bill will make them remain illegal. It was an act of tyranny to make them legal, not just retroactively but into the future as well. Undoing that is the correct action, your arguments otherwise are completely backwards. Whether we prosecute those crimes is another matter.
Legal or illegal is irrelevant because the immunity law didn't make them either. Under existing law (at least since the 1968 Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968), anyone who helps the government in wiretaps or searches, if they are presented with documentation claiming it's legal and the government is entitled to the information legally, then presenting that documentation is a complete defense against any civil or criminal action. Now the law specifies what documentation is acceptable and in 1978, it was amended with the passage of FISA to include warrant-less wiretaps ordered by the AG. Carter wrote an executive order giving more people the power to fulfill the signing of the orders and Clinton expanded FISA's warrant-less taps to include physical searches by an executive order. It's further been amended by the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), the patriot acts and one or two others which modify parts that the complete defense authorize.
What this boils down to is that the telecoms already had immunity. The problem is that the documentation that would allow them to realize their complete defence was classified as a national security secret making any disclosure of the contents of the orders a felony carrying 5 years to life in prison with the possibility of capitol punishment. The immunity law did nothing more then allow the telecoms (or anyone who assisted the government) to present the claim to the court of review which then asked the department who issued it if it's real. If so, they then ask about it's necessity to remain secret. If it needs to remain secret, the court of review instructs the court holding the actions to dismiss it without disclosing any of the secret information. If the order doesn't need to be kept secret, it's returned to the telecoms with instructions to present it as their existing complete defense. If the order isn't legitimate, the telecoms get nothing. I repeat, the telecoms only get their immunity if it would have already existed and could have been realized had the orders not been classified.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I think you are drinking too much of the cool aid.
There are many processes contributing to the Co2 increases that aren't attributed to Humans. Volcanic activity under the sea is responsible for a part of it. The sun is responsible for a part also. You see, the oceans are giant carbon sinks and they hold more Co2 when they are colder. The undersea volcanic activity as well as the increased surface temperatures trigger a release of Co2. There are other natural processes involved that caused the increases of Co2 too. While most of the Co2 is caused by human activity, not all of it is nor will it ever be.
No it doesn't. It's lifetime in the atmosphere is coordinated only with the saturation levels of the atmosphere. It's erroneous to think otherwise. The IPCC had to change some climate models because of this back in 2004 or so. It was pointed out to them that there was an increase of the dewpoint meaning more H2O was in the atmosphere.
The numbers do not suggest a percentage of the population with or without a car. I really have no idea where your getting your 23% at either. Please cite a source or explain your math on that.
Anyways, on the same page linked to, it says that there is 229,500,000 vehicles owned in the US verses 211,600,000 in the EU. That's only a difference of 17,900,000 or 7% less. Now considering that the EU is geographically smaller then the US by about 2,124,259 square miles (56.6% smaller), there is less need for a car by as many people. There is also the problem that the EU is not Europe or all of Europe's countries. But when we look at some of those countries in the list, we find that in the top 14 spots, those countries have at least one car for every 2 people or better. OF those countries, 7 or half of them are in Europe. of the next 11 countries, they are all within 8% of 1 vehicle for every two people and they are all European countries.
Europe is about the same as the US. The US has more vehicles but there is nothing drastically different in Europe. Most of the differences can be attributed to the smaller land mass and increased expenses in owning and operating a car in Europe- not because the EU people have magically discovered how to get rid of cars.
Let me correct you a tad bit here. I'm not saying your wrong but I don't think your considering a couple of things. Have you ever heard of "changing of the guard"? In about any organization, not just military, you have the old leadership who was set in their ways. Eventually, they get replaced by younger leaders who have a little different ideas. Change can and does occur within the parties, it just takes a long time for it to happen. In the mid 90's, we had a lot of this happen inside the republican party. The new advocates supported term limits, campaign finance reforms, fiscal responsibility and so on. Unfortunately, the old school had too much influence over them and the change wasn't permanent.
I will agree that third parties can effect change. However, there will never be a real chance that they can compete. Why, because to counter any third party threat, all the major party has to do is adopt a position similar and all the sudden the third party is negated to bitching about not getting time in the debates. The third part doesn't generally strike this up as a win, they attempt to distinguish themselves further from the major parties and all the sudden, everyone thinks they are a bunch of lunatics.
Third parties do not attempt to invest the grass roots levels of support needed to become as strong or popular as the major parties. Well, in Vermont they seem to be but that's really a rarity compared to the rest of the country. The reason why democrats and republicans have so much support and following isn't because we don't have special tricks with elections (I will expand more on that later), it's because they hold offices close to the people's homes and lives. Your sheriff runs on a party ticket, your municipal and county judges run on a party ticket. Even the local dog warden (read dog catcher) runs on a party ticket. This filters up to the state and federal levels and people look around them and decide they like or dislike the person or party they represent. Their only contrast is the other major party who took the time and effort to get into this position. If any third party expects to be a viable competition against the major parties, they need to be in this position- yet they refuse to.
Actually, it can happen. I just described one of the ways it can happen. However, you do realize that we already have had instant runoff elections and abandoned them don't you? The electoral college used to do the instant runoff and it's the reason why it's accurate to say that George Washing was unanimously elected as president when the electoral count doesn't reflect that. This was used to determine the president and vice president. It was changed later by an amendment into what we see now.
I don't like the idea of instant runoff, it will create more pandering and more lies then the current process enables. It's not some panacea for the third party because all the two major parties have to do is just place other people on the ticket and they will occupy the top two slots -meaning their guy will win. Of course the second guy would probably run under a third party name, but knowing he has the support of the major party or the major party has his support, then all you have is the illusion of a third party choice. And yes, this can easily be manipulated by the major parties which are little more then coalitions of former third parties wrapped into a common set of ideals. And most importantly, there is nothing to prevent that from happening again.
Then take your half trillion and shove it in your ass for all I care. When we are invaded, we will just put you in the front of the line as fodder while our diminished capabilities work out a strategy. I mean if your not going to invest in the military, you shouldn't reap any of the rewards that people who do invest enjoy. these rewards are not having anyone invade us, protection of out people over seas, and so on. So grab your money and live without the military acting on your behalf, it doesn't matter to me.
Actually, it is Powell's fault for pretending to be something he isn't. And when taking race over party, well, that's the type of ignorance and lack of rational thinking we expect of democrats. And yes, that's what most republicans think of Powell. In the context of not bringing him up, they did more to protect him then anything.
Perhaps you need a definition for about as many. I didn't say it was exact, and nothing you linked to proved other then it wasn't exact. Outside the increased costs of owning a car in Europe, there is surprisingly high usage numbers comparable to the US.
And despite some or Europe's measurements being outdated by as many as 5 years in some cases compared to the rest of the of Europe, the US, Canada and many other nations listed, it all boils down to almost 1 motor vehicle for every 2 people in Europe verses 1 motor vehicle for every 1.5-1.7 people in the US and other industrialized countries. They are "about the same" in any normal interpretation of about.
Then take your 500 million and invest it however you want. Just don't take mine and invest it. Neither car company (old or new) should be getting government money. People like you are more then willing to invest and if their business plan was actually worth something, they could get their funding from private investors.
As for politics, Colin Powell isn't really a republican as far as most republicans are concerned. IF the WSJ stated he was part of the deal, then most people would just assume it was payback for supporting race instead of his own party in the last presidential election. I suggest that not mentioning his name did more to provide an innocent look then mentioning his name could of.
Common, let the guy defend AL Gore and the government giving him money to be spent in foreign countries. Why Burst his Bubble when he is on such a roll chastising Fox News and WSJ in order to deflect from Gore or the government. I mean common, what's a few lies from someone with such a noble cause as sticking up for the environmentalist democrat known for stretching the truth who used to be vice president and uses that to push his agenda to profit from his activism who is also getting funding from a cash strapped democrat controlled government in order to spend in other countries.
Can't we all just get along? (why to I feel like 10 cops just beat me simple?)
The two major parties right now are minor parties joined together. In order to get anything done, they will have to pact together once in power creating the exact same situation.
And that's beside the point that no third party is ever more then 15% different from the major parties. There is no aha, they're different. For 80% or better of all issues, it would be just like a two party system. Third parties is just a pipe dream. They will not change anything. IF reform needs to happen, it needs to happen from the inside out and with the major parties.
Knowledge and education wouldn't be seen bad or elitists if it wasn't for asshats like the GP going around a acting like they are better then everyone else. At least the dumb asses of the world find something like differences in culture to dislike someone but because someone doesn't know as much, that's fucking retarded. I mean seriously, there are plenty of educated and knowledgable people who are also religious and read the bible of some sort. How is that an automatice disqualifyer for being smart.
Yes, the problem is with asshats like the GP who tend to do associations with inanimate objects to put people down and attempt to raise themselves up at the same time. They are the reasons behind it.
I've often found that most people who feel it's necessary to tell people how smart they are result in being fairly stupid. It's the entire tear someone else down so you can feel better about yourself trick. I think the GP is suffering from this. One day, he looked in the mirror and didn't like what he saw so he puts others down in order to feel good about himself. It's the reason why shows like Jerry Springer is so popular, it's not because it's entertaining, it's because people look at the screwed up lives of the guests on the show and feel better about their own life.
Then why are there about as many cars on a per capita basis in Europe as there is in the US?
Or are you just making things up and claiming to speak for everyone?
BTW, enjoying life is a personal pursuit, why do you think you can tell people what they can and cannot do to reach this personal level of enjoyment? What someone needs and does not need to enjoy life depends solely on their enjoyment, not yours.
Yea, it just evolved that way and despite a century of grocery stores and not getting your food from the farm directly, it has not evolved back away from it. Go figure.
Subsidies are different from loans- gifts- or bailouts. That is because subsidies get a return which is whatever specific behavior they (the government) were looking for.
Take oil subsidies for instance, they aren't just gifts from the government. The oil companies have to do something specific to get it. In the last few years, it has been experimenting with alternative energy platforms and keeping unprofitable sites open. Generally, each subsidy costs more then the reimbursements so the oil companies are losing money on those projects by taking them, just not as much had they not had the subsidies. However, without the subsidies, the sites would have been closed down, the research likely would never have been done, equipment would have not been replaced and oil prices would likely be higher.
Subsidies get a result or work towards a result. Loans on the other hand is little more then a grant. The problems with the government giving loans is that other institutions exist to do that job. If they found it too risky to give a loan, then chances are that it is entirely too risky for tax dollars. This is ok when it's a person with bad credit attempting to go to school or something to better their abilities and make more income. It's not good for business models that can't stand the scrutiny of normal lending practices.
And you obviously do not. Or at least your refusing to see the point being made.
I'm not saying a law wasn't broken, I'm not saying that they didn't have a case in a french court. I am saying that in a US or UK court, if they removed the contract between VNC and Edu4, then any third party could not know they were an intended third party beneficiary and wouldn't have a case. Only the copyright owner could bring suit because they would be the only party that could prove a contract existed between the two parties (GPL) that intended to benefit the third party. In the US and UK, you cannot say this product is typically licenses this way so it should be here too. You have to prove that a contract between VNC and Edu4 existed and that you were an intended beneficiary. With the GPL and copyright removed, only the copyright holder can declare it or the contract existed unless Edu4 volunteers the information at a later date. Baring an admision from Edu4, you simply cannot prove a contract between two other parties that you were an intended beneficiary of without the copyright owners.
What that means is, if I or you strip the GPL and copyright from a product and distribute it, the end user which is a third party will not have a legal standing for the case in the first place without the original contractors (read copyright owners). Once the copyright owners get involved for the fulfillment of their contract, the third party suit is not allowed.
Furthermore, I'm saying that under the current GPL, Edu4 could have installed the VNC software solely for their convenience and discretion and no software transfer would have taken place (section 2 of the GPLv3). The case in question revolves around a 2000 incident so it would be governed under the GPLv2's statements which doesn't have provisions for running software remotely. However, I'm not sure that wouldn't have changed in US court seeing how the VNC GPL notice claims or later versions. So it would appear that the third party claim would/could have disappeared under section 2's terminology of the GPLv3 when it came into effect.
For the 5 years in federal prison, there needs to be a few qualifiers like reasonably knowing of the violation at the time of infringement and commercial or private gain directly because of the unauthorized distribution. There is also a special condition for movies but it wouldn't apply to software. It's a fine line that may or may not apply depending on the circumstances.
Anyways, I agree with what you stated. However, the point I was making is that some advocates pretend that losing the code is the only option. What is comes down to is FUD created by GPL enthusiast furthered by outside entities wanting to increase the uncertainty of using products other then theirs. Do you remember the entire line of FUD over word processor documents using GLPed fonts needing to be open source because part of the font was embedded in the document making it a derivative work?
ok, first of all, the EFF is not a legal authority so their claim of illegal has yet to be determined. Second, the EFF was going after the rerouting of the communications lines through central locations and the storage of numbers which to date is completely legal under the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) as long as the government doesn't access it without proper justification. Finally, the EFF really has no idea of the scope and breadth of the secrete program- it's a fucking secret. Their initial lawsuit was an attempt to gain more information about it and their major claim is that it enables illegal activity or activity they claim is illegal. They have no proof that anything is illegal because despite any of their claims, the validity of them has yet to be adjudicated.
That being said, there is nothing to show that the scope of what the EFF is claiming is not in line with the courts rendition of allowable or reasonable warrant-less searches. The one article claims a court actually said they were constitutional because of measures taken to prevent abuse. Further more, the ACLU just lost their suit in which the court said their claims are that the violation is probable, not that it happened.
Furthermore, according to FISA, US persons can be US citizens.
Are you suggesting that the telecoms ignore the FISA law where it says that the president can through the attorney general, order a wiretap for up to one year under certain conditions? Or is your entire "only honored FISA granted warrants" inclusive of this legal warrant-less wiretap?
The problem is, they didn't use warrants, they used the orders as the FISA law allows. In this problem, a subject of the warrants were people that should have never been. The reason they need the immunity is because they are compelled by law to assist in the wire taps if they are presented certain documentation. This documentation includes FISA wiretap orders with absolutely no warrants at all. Now they have always had this immunity in title 18 section 2520 (d) that says if they were given the certain papers, it would be a complete defense against all criminal or civil actions. But wait, there is a problem here, the telecoms cannot present this documentation because they have been classified as national security secrets and disclosing them or anything on them would create a felony violation carrying 5 to life in prison and possably the death penalty.
Here enters the protect America act and the immunity clauses there. The immunity clause doesn't give blanket immunity for any and all actions that happened after 9/11. Instead, it creates a court of review, when a telecom is sued, they bring the documents to the court of reviews attention, they validate it with the AG or whoever authorized it, and then asks if it's still needs to be classified. Only then will the telecoms get the immunity. The new law is nothing more then a vehicle for the people who are legally compelled to assist the government in wiretaps and searches the complete defense promised in other laws.
No all of them. there are provisions in which the administration could authorize a wire tap for up to one year and never obtain a warrant. These provisions is also where the problems come from.
No, one of the initial warrant-less taps followed how you remembered. That is also possible for non-FISA emergency taps too. However, With FISA, that was only in connection to US persons as defined by the law. Not all US citizens or people inside the US qualified as US persons. For foreign agents and foreign governments, a one year authorization without ever applying for or getting a warrant was always permissible as long as you take minimization precautions to ensure you do not tap US persons.
Now here is the provision that caused the problems for the Bush administration. This is the original 1978 FISA law which for out purposed, was essentially the same as in 2002 until the patriot and protect America acts amended it. When we look at the definitions of a US persons (subsection j) used by the law, we find that it covers almost anyone legally in the US and all companies incorporated in the US or unincorporated in which a substantial membership consist of US citizens. However, there is one exception, it denies the classification as a "United States Person" for the purpose of this law if any of the above is a corporation or association which is a foreign power as defined earlier in the law (subsection a (1)(2) or (3).
So we go back to the foreign power definition and see what is required to exempt someone from being a US person. We find that a foreign government or any part thereof whether the US recognizes it or not, a faction of a foreign nation or nations not composed substantially of United States Persons, and an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or government and to be directed and controlled by them.
Now, if you assume a foreign agent is a component of a foreign power, acting on the foreign power's direction, then we can see that a foreign agent (b 2 C and D) any person who knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism for a foreign power or activities in the preparation there of or anyone who knowingly aids and abets anyone or conspires with them in violation subparagraph A, B, and C.
Now whether this is legal or not is irrelevant because it sets the stage for the administration to issue wiretap orders for up to a year without ever needing a warrant. Now I'm not talking about if the administration was justified in their actions or not, but they definitely had the vehicle to order wiretaps without a warrant and the telecoms were compelled by law to assist. Section 102 says, notwithstanding any other law, the president through the attorney general may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this title to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period of up to one year if the AG certifies in writing under oath that: (it goes on to list several conditions, one of which is that no US person is party to).
Ok, now to wrap this up, the telecoms, if presented with a signed paper from the AG stating under oath that X, Y, and Z has happened, the telecoms are required to assist in the wiretaps and they can last up to a year before simply being renewed. We know that not all US citizens or people inside the US are considered US persons according to the law so it is extremely likely that the telecoms didn't know what they did was illegal until after the fact.
None of what I wrote means that Bush didn't violate the law, I'm not making excused for them. I can do that in a completely different way which makes FISA sor
OK, the TSA checkpoints are somewhat new since 9/11, but common, seriously, you havn't been able to walk onto the tarmack without a boarding pass or legitimate reason to be there since Yasser Arafat stareted the hijacking movement in the 70s.
As for the TSA checkpoints. There always were random inspections before crossing the hoover dam. They weren't permanent fixtures but the gate houses and crap was there ever since I can remember (95 is the first I drove across it) driving across it. When I was a truck driver, I was actually stopped and search at the damn shortly after the federal building in Oklahoma City was blown up. Of course as a truck driver, I'm sort of used to that because we get vehicle safety inspections, hours of service inspections, and cargo inspections all the time. The national guard has an extending boom forklift that can reach all the way to the front of a 53 foot trailer without the vehicle itself entering the trailer. They were looking for drugs one day (a dog keys off on the trailer), the had me unloaded, searched, reloaded with a DEA seal, and on my way in less then 2 hours. That was when entering AZ from California on I10.
Stop trying so hard to be so wrong.
The EFF suit was about ATT's cooperation with the NSA on taping Americans. The NSA has always stated that they only taped Americans who were on international calls with one party being suspected of being a spy or terrorist. There has never been anyone competently close to the NSA actions who have claimed otherwise and that includes democrats and republicans in the house and senate who were kept completely informed about the TSP from the start.
Now I'm going to mention FISA in which is always had allows taps and searches within the US borders and it has always defined US persons to be US people other then those working for/with foreign agents and government. So even FISA allows US citizens to be tapped within the US and FISA was specifically created because domestic law enforcement agents were attempting to bypass warrant requirements by using national security exemptions to wire tap their suspects.
Now, did you actually read the article I linked to? I mean it says "The three-judge court, which hears rare appeals from the full Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, addressed provisions of the Protect America Act, passed by Congress in 2007 amid the controversy over Mr. Bush's program of wiretapping without warrants. It found that the administration had put in place sufficient privacy safeguards to meet the constitutional standards of the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches. Because of that, the company had to cooperate, the court said."
They actually have used those types of tactics ever since 1970 when the original 1968 wiretaps laws were amended to force cooperation of the telecoms, landlords, facility managers, and so on. But, in the original Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, the telecoms and anyone legally compelled to assist the government in searches and wiretaps had a complete defense against any criminal or civil actions brought against them as long as they were presented with specific documentation described by the law (18 section 2520).
The problem that arises now is that documentation is considered classified as a national security secret. We can argue all day about if that action was to protect the administrations illegal acts or because of actual national security interest. However, that would be beside the point because the documents which are needed to prove a complete defense is classified and it would create a felony situation carrying 5 years to life and possible death penalty for anyone to disclose the information in it.
Now think about that. It's like the government issuing you a conceal carry license good for anywhere within the country and then claiming you will go to jail for longer then the concealed weapons charge if you present your license because it's classified.
The immunity law didn't really create any new immunity. It did little more then provide a vehicle for the telecoms and those who are forced to assist by law, to present their documentation that would give them a complete defense under existing law, in which they wouldn't be committing felonies in the process or disclosing national security interest.
If you look at the provisions of the immunity portion, you will see that it does 3 things. It creates a court of review that the telecoms can present the orders the government gave them, it validates these warrants by interrogating the agencies who issued them, and finally, it required those agencies to justify keeping the orders classified. Only if all three of those are met, does the court of review instruct the court holding the actions against the telecoms to drop the case and prevent it from being held in any other court.
Now on the surface, you may look at that and think it's completely retroactive. But lets ask a few questions here. One, why is an order or warrant required in order to get the immunity? Two, why must the agency who issued the warrant claim the information needs to remain classified.
The answer to that is because under existing laws, the telecoms already have a complete defense against any criminal or civil action if the government presented them with a document prescribed by law claiming they had a legal right to the information/wiretap. The problem they face is that the administration classified all of the orders as national security secrets and disclosing any information about them is a felony that could result in 5 years to life and possible the death penalty. The immunity is little more then a vehicle for the telecoms to realize the complete defense they already had.
There is no blanket immunity in the telecom immunity provisions from before the enactment of the law. All of the previous immunity is only realized when the telecoms would have already had immunity and the documents are classified making disclosing them impossible. If the document doesn't exist, no immunity happens. If the document is no longer classified, it's given to the telecoms with the instructions to present it as their complete defense under existing law.
Now your right, it's not a case of "A was legal, now it's not". It's also not a case of "A may not be legal, and we said we weren't going to do anything about it, but we've changed our minds". It's a case of "even if this was illegal, because the law forces you to assist the government when presented with certain documentation, you cannot be held liable to those actions". The immunity provisions in the patriot is nothing more then allowing the legal use of the existing immunity that was present before the passage of the act but impossible to realize without committing felonies and possible endangering national security.
The "unsettled legal question whether what the telecoms did was legal" is irrelevant for the purpose of the immunity law because we have said explicitly through existing law that because they are forced to assist when certain documentation is presented, they can't be held accountable for any actions resulting from that assistance. IT may very well be that what they did was highly illegal, but they still enjoy a complete defense.
They aren't gutted any more then they were in the beginning of the country. The first congress passed a law allowing border searches without warrants and they wrote the bill of rights as well as ratified them.
Actually, title 18 2520 d gave the telecoms a complete defense against all criminal and civil actions. The problem is that the documentation needed to support this complete defense was classified as a national security secret meaning that disclosure of any of the information would result in a felony containing 5 years to life in prison with the possibility of the death penalty. The immunity law does nothing but provide a vehicle in which the claimed documentation can be verified without placing the telecoms in violation of this felony or disclosing national security secrets.
Just because you do not understand something, doesn't make it the way you want it to be.
Yes, it was a crime. However, because the telecoms (and a number of other people including landlords and so on) are required by law to assist the government as ling as certain documentation is presented, those specific people are absolved from their actions in the crime. It's like a law that says you can't jaywalk being used against you when you run in the middle of the street to save the life of a toddler who wondered into traffic. OF course I'm not attempting to claim the telecoms saved any lives, I'm saying that a higher authority forced them to participate on something that was illegal (in this case the law was the higher authority) and under the facts of the situation, they can't be sued or prosecuted.
Now you can make this as partisan as you want. The fact is that the house and senate intelligence committees as well as their leaderships were completely in the loop on this and received regular reports concerning the TSP operation. Both parties were involved, both parties knew about it, and it didn't become partisan until it was convenient for an election.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The "retroactive immunity" which isn't retroactive was put in place in order to allow the telecoms experience the complete defense they already had without disclosing national security secrets. Now you can argue that the documents were classified as national security secrets in order to do as you claimed. I do remember certain groups claiming the reason they were suing was to get information about the government. But that information was held back long before any immunity was around and the Bush administration actually went to court a
Legal or illegal is irrelevant because the immunity law didn't make them either. Under existing law (at least since the 1968 Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968), anyone who helps the government in wiretaps or searches, if they are presented with documentation claiming it's legal and the government is entitled to the information legally, then presenting that documentation is a complete defense against any civil or criminal action. Now the law specifies what documentation is acceptable and in 1978, it was amended with the passage of FISA to include warrant-less wiretaps ordered by the AG. Carter wrote an executive order giving more people the power to fulfill the signing of the orders and Clinton expanded FISA's warrant-less taps to include physical searches by an executive order. It's further been amended by the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), the patriot acts and one or two others which modify parts that the complete defense authorize.
What this boils down to is that the telecoms already had immunity. The problem is that the documentation that would allow them to realize their complete defence was classified as a national security secret making any disclosure of the contents of the orders a felony carrying 5 years to life in prison with the possibility of capitol punishment. The immunity law did nothing more then allow the telecoms (or anyone who assisted the government) to present the claim to the court of review which then asked the department who issued it if it's real. If so, they then ask about it's necessity to remain secret. If it needs to remain secret, the court of review instructs the court holding the actions to dismiss it without disclosing any of the secret information. If the order doesn't need to be kept secret, it's returned to the telecoms with instructions to present it as their existing complete defense. If the order isn't legitimate, the telecoms get nothing. I repeat, the telecoms only get their immunity if it would have already existed and could have been realized had the orders not been classified.