Yes and no. The situation surrounding Sklyarov isn't as cut and dry as it seems. You see, the DMCA is spelled out in the WIPO "WCT" and "WPPT" treaties. Russia didn't sign on to them until 2008 or 2009. The Sklyarov case happened in 2001 but the so called violations happened before that.
Now the problem with Sklyarov is that he distributed his program to US citizens inside the US borders which places his actions within US jurisdiction by extension of commerce. If he limited his distribution to only the countries in which the software was legal, then I would be totally against it. However, existing treaties between the US and Russia allowed for the jurisdiction to be extended. It's primarily used as a way to punish fraud and scams and at least in this case, was used to enforce copyright law. It basically says when they do business in each others markets, the laws of the country's market prevail. I.E. You can't use US law in Russia and you can't use Russian law in the US when conducting business and they conflict. by conflict, it's a matter of nationality where a US citizen or Russian citizen is expected to follow their national laws when outside their country unless the visiting country has a law specifically allowing it. An example of this is drug laws, in many European nations it's legal to posses, use, and deal certain drugs that are illegal in the US. Simply having no law banning it would mean that a US national would have to follow the law at home except when there is a law specifically allowing the behavior. So if there is no law, US law applies to the US national, if there is a law, the foreign country law applies.
When Dmitry's physical presence came into US jurisdiction, he was able to be held even though he didn't willfully violate US law (as the December trial found). Willfully is important because the DMCA has a state of mind contention where a person has to pretty much know he is doing something wrong.
Now do I agree with it, no I do not. Especially considering he was eventually freed without a crime being determined to actually happen. However, this case can't be used as precedent because of the treaties that allowed it to move forward. There are no treaties supporting Spain's intention or the mechanism in which they intend to enact them. Basically, a half crazy judge in Spain all the sudden declared he has jurisdiction with nothing in international law supporting it. Without looking at the details of the situation, it would appear that they are similar, but they are not similar outside of someone potentially being arrested. In the Dmitry case, the laws of both countries through the process of treaties supported the action. In the Spain situation and the potential arrest of US citizens that have never been charged for a crime, it's just one country that can support the action and that is shaky to boot.
What Spain has essentially done with this is claim jurisdiction to the entire world without regard to any sovereignty existing.
*I though "so let's get this right" meant you were going to put an effort behind your intentions. Obviously that didn't happen.
What I said and continue to say is that when a citizen is in their jurisdiction and violates a law, they can be held accountable. When a citizen is not in their jurisdiction ans they claim a law was violated only to arrest them in the future, the government should use all force availible to secure their release. This is not a two tier system, it's actually the American judicial system and the premise of sovereignty.
I'm sorry, I didn't know that saying something that presented the facts to someone who was confused was too long for you to bother reading was a Joke. I guess my point was a joke too, your not a comedian so stop thinking so highly of yourself.
Uhhhh....you ever actually watch that man speak in public? Bush was as dumb as a bag of hammers. Hell he made Ford look graceful by comparison. Now Cheney and Rumsfeld on the other hand were both long term power players going all the way back to Reagan.
I think you missed the part where I said "he might have fooled some of your into thinking he was stupid, in fact he wasn't or his handlers wasn't depending on if you buy into the conspiracy or not".
Now I can take you at your word that he is dumb, but he managed to pull the wool over your eyes many times with taking us into war and many other things. But then I would have to ask you, what does that make you and everyone else when a dumb man did all that he did while it being unpopular at the time? Face it, he isn't as dumb as you think, he just made you think that so you wouldn't expect some of the things he did.
So if you are gonna give blame/credit for the mess of 2001-2008 then give it to the ones that actually thought it up. Bush was a total moron who came off as even more moronic because his handlers kept him from seeing how truly disliked he was until the last 2 years when he and Cheney had the falling out over Scooter Libby.
I don't know, what do you think the words "he might have fooled some of your into thinking he was stupid, in fact he wasn't or his handlers wasn't depending on if you buy into the conspiracy or not," actually mean? I mean I acknowledge that people think he had handlers who were the brains behind everything, is it just that you feel the need to trash bush so much that you need to be redundent while attempting to ignore what I said and refute it by saying the same things?
Obama will probably turn out to be just as shitty as Bush, but at least the man knows what the public thinks of him and his policies, hence all the airtime. I truly think Bush was completely clueles pre 2006.
Bush wasn't clueless, he just wasn't giving his political opponents ammunition. Obama's biggest critics user Obama's own words to criticize his positions. Your right, Obama will be just as shitty as Bush, except the difference will end up being Obama serve 4 years while Bush served 8. Every time Obama speaks, he says something to validate his opponents. Every speech that knocks off someone's favorite program it creates a bit of disdain for him. Hell, the death panels criticism in his health care reform only got traction because of Obama's own words to a woman who bragged about her mom getting a pacemaker at 100 years of age and living another 6 years and counting then asked how his health care plan would address stuff like that. Obama said she needed to considered just taking a pain pill instead of getting the surgery that allowed her to live another comfortable 6+ years.
Don't be fooled into thinking exposure is better. Obama should have had the health care through by now. Little gaffs like the one about just taking a pain pill instead of a life saving surgery has stopped something that he had enough party support to force through if he would have kept his mouth shut. Now he has to pander to people inside his own party to get support for the measures and the more he speaks on it, the more other people find things they do not like. Most people might ignore the news channel of the talking heads on the radio, but they listen to the president of the United States of America and more and more people end up getting scared or pissed off over what they hear him saying. They thought it was just fud until he starts reinforcing the crap with his exposure.
Wow, someone modded this as flaimbait. I guess ignoring the facts and and modding things down is the tactic of choice for those who can't back their positions and political ideals.
The bottom line is that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever at all that the telecoms knew what they were doing was against the law. The law sets up a situation where they are exonerated for their part if the government follows a few procedures and pretends to have a legal right to the information. The GP was wrong, wrong, wrong, and did little more then inject opinions about small pieces of facts then contrive outcomes of intent as if he has some special insight into the situation. Of course the facts tend to work against him which is why I posted that. And of course, I'm posting this so the comment wouldn't be buried by the down mod and go unnoticed.
That's a shame that you are publicly admitting to remaining willfully ignorant and intellectually lazy.
I hope that works out for you. Sadly, it probably won't and you will forever be in the dark and complaining about crap you have no clue about while it only gets worse right underneath your own nose. I'm thinking that your the type of guy who can sit in the middle of a room while someone turns the lights on and off and you wouldn't notice a thing.
I hope this post isn't too long for you that you do not read it. Maybe you could try hanging out at a site that allows pictures to be posted so it's not so troublesome for you to read.
Nope, I'm saying the US should protect it's citizens and not allow them to be political hostages for some bent idiots crazed on ideological points. In fact, I would expect any country to protect and stand behind their citizens in the same way, the topic just happened to of been about a US Citizen.
I'm sorry, did I not mention that the paper work is classified as national security secrets and it would be a felony for anyone at the telecoms to disclose that information punishable by 5 to life with the possibility of the death sentence?
If I did fail to mention it, that would be because it's only reported all over the place that Bush classified the documents. Most Bush bashers claim he only did it to hide his tracks from FOIA and others ventures. Obviously, it's more then that because Obama has been president for 9 months or more and not only are they still classified, Obama sent the justice department to court to defend the telecom immunity law back in feb when the EFF challenged it unsuccessfully. I sort of just assumed it was already known to anyone paying attention.
Ignore the facts and make silly statements elsewhere.
I'm sorry, but how can someone who pretends to be so intelligent come off so ignorant? I mean you totally ignored what I said in order to grandstand your semi correct point and you have failed to even remotely investigate the situation in law or the details involved. I guess I will have to educate you on a couple of things.
It all democratic countries, there is something called the seperation of powers. Only those branches of government responsible for enacting laws can enact laws. The administrative or executive branch can issue all the commands, orders, instructions and memos it likes, if they are against the law as legislated, then it is a criminal act to obey those commands, orders, instructions and memos but law you are required to disobey them and inform the appropriate branch of the judiciary of the illegal instruction.
We are not talking about democratic countries, we are talking about the United States of America. And in this specific country, intent is a component of a lot of our laws. Killing someone can get you life in prison, 20 years, 10 years 5 years, 6 months or no punishment at all depending on your intent. Intent contains state of mind. Generally, there is premeditated, aggravated, recklessly, knowingly, unknowingly, and a few more that I will leave you and google to discover on your own. Now keep this in mind because the law says, and has always said, that when the government presents the legal authority to receive the information, the telecoms have a complete defense.
Now reread that and pay attention this time because you totally skipped over it the first time in order to blabber your speech. Here are the points, you need to understand, just in case your not native english and the words confuse you. The law already provides immunity in the form of a complete defense. The immunity law that we are concerned with in the article only provides immunity when it would have already applied as a complete defense under the other laws. This is because when the government presents the legal authority to have something but doesn't really have the authority, the telecoms unknowingly participated in the crime. And since this crime is committed on specific instances and not with every action, the telecoms do not know which incident is a crime until after the fact and someone points it out to them.
So the retroactive immunity is nothing more than saving face, of the US government being to embarrassed to publicly prosecute the law breakers, including the NSA, various telecommunications companies and of course the previous US administration. So do you bother to maintain the heat, of verbally bashing those broke the law, of course, you never give up, you shame them worse than the shame that prosecution would bring. You write their history, you keep the memory alive and, you never let them live it down.
Nothing is retroactive about this immunity. You are talking out of your ass due to ignorance and intellectual laziness prompted by political motivation and disdain. It's riddled throughout your comment and is obvious to anyone capable of critical thinking and a little self motivated research.
The law in question has been amended by the patriot act but the original stated the same intent and was in existence since 1968. It provides that if the government presents the legal authority for the tap, the telecom has a complete defense against any criminal or civil action. The telecom is not require to validate any warrant, order or legislative authority the government cites on the request, they are simply obligated by law to comply when it is presented. Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 states, 2520 A good faith reliance on a court order or on the provisions of section 2518(7) of this chapter shall constitute a complete defense to any civil or criminal action brought under this cha
These guy are doing neither. They are grandstanding, pandering, and one of them is prepping for election next year.
Their bill is completely a waste of time as both the government and telecoms enjoy a 2 year statute of limitations from the time anyone could reasonably know they were subject to one of the taps. That time has pretty much long past given all the talk and concern about the subject.
However, just in case it isn't for someone living in a cave somewhere, you need to look at what the immunity bill actually did. It set up a special court. This court's job was to review documents presented by the telecoms when they get sued for the TSP or any government wire tap. It then asked the Attorney General or which ever agency authorized by law at the time if they gave the order. If both, the telecom has an order, and the agency certifies it, then the case is dropped. If the telecoms do not have an order or if the government claims it's fake, they do not get the immunity.
Now, how is this different then before the immunity law was passed? Actually not by much except that it allows for a way that the orders can be reviewed without disclosing national security secrets. You see, existing laws already gave the telecoms a "complete defense" against all criminal and civil actions brought against them if the government gave them an order claiming they had a legal right to the information under an existing law. That is what the immunity bill covered too. The problem is that using that complete defense was impossible because the orders were classified as national security secrets. In fact, they still are classified so their importance apparently goes beyond hiding Bush's actions. Unfortunately, there is no way to disclose the orders or the contents of the order without coming into violation of a felony containing prison terms.
All that will happen without the immunity law is that the court will have to set up some way to view the documents without putting anyone in violation of the law as well as not disclosing any secrete information. In short, the court will have to recreate the provisions in the immunity law to ensure justice is served and the telecoms have their complete defense as the law stated since 1968.
This is nothing more then political maneuvering. They probably did a pole and found that a lot of their supporters were uninformed people who didn't possess the wherewithal to find out for themselves and they could distract or manipulate something else. One of them, Senator Russell Feingold, is most likely pandering for votes.
Your making the mistake of assuming the telecoms knew that what they were doing was both illegal or immoral. There is nothing to indicate that they were aware of this when it happened. In fact, most of the situation indicates that they only knew after the fact of the action.
Or do you have some special insight that no one else does? BTW, if the orders weren't national security secrets, the telecoms would have gotten immunity without the newer immunity law. Also, the immunity law doesn't cover acts the telecoms knew to be illegal at the time they were performed. Try reading is sometime. Compare what it requires for immunity to what the telecoms were required to accept to do wire taps.
What do they call that when a limit to the options are presented as if they are the only options acailible? Oh yes, a false dichotomy.
The problem is that warrants weren't ever "always needed" to get a wire tap. Some wire taps only require certification that the government had a legal right to the information. This was true even before the patriot act, FISA, and was true after them too.
So option 3 would be, do business as normal and comply with government requests as the law requires them to do, and wonder exactly what illegal taps people are talking about.
Option 3 is what is known as operating under the color of law. This is where someone pretends there is a law or legal backing for their actions when knowing there isn't. This is what the government did and it's evident because the immunity law that we are concerned with only grants immunity of the same orders and requirements can be validated. It's probable that the telecoms didn't know they were violating the law at all until after the fact. And even before the immunity law, the telecoms had a complete defense against any criminal or civil action when this happened. The immunity laws was nothing more then a vehicle to get that complete defense because the orders are classified as national security secrets and disclosing them would create a felony charge with jail time.
There is no evidence that anyone in the government asked the telecoms to break the law.
There is plenty of evidence that the government asked the telecoms to do something that also happened to be against the law, but there is no evidence that the telecoms knew anything about the illegality of the actions when doing it. In fact, all evidence, including the telecom immunity provisions this bill is concerned with over turning, indicates that the telecoms did not know what they were doing was illegal.
There always was ways to get wire taps without warrants. There has always been legal proccedures for government departments or investigating officers to get phone tapes without a warrant. It involves special circumstances and a statement that the person requesting the tap has the legal authority to do so with a signature by some responsible people. The AG is one but others are capable of doing it to. The telecom immunity law specifically require this statement detailing the government had a legal right to the information and it required the agency (AG's office) to certify if they issues the request or not. Only then does the cases get dropped and become barred from being brought back up.
That immunity isn't anything new either. Existing law before the immunity outlines a complete defense from all criminal and civil actions against the telecoms if the government presents them with documentation claiming they have the legal right to the information. All the immunity law does is provide a vehicle so the complete defense laws can be used without violating national security secrets and placing the telecoms in violation of federal laws. The documents concerning the TSP have been classified and disclosing them or information on them would be a felony containing jail time.
The telecoms do not need to be forced, coerced or threatened, they just need the government to act under the color of law and they have a complete defense by statute. The immunity laws this bill is concerned with did nothing but protect the telecoms when the government acted under the color of law. The reason this is provided is because the telecoms are required by law to cooperate with the government for providing taps and facilities to make it easier.
Actually no they do not need to get judicial approval. In general yes, but there are situations and conditions that allow wire taps without warrants being issued and the courts have already backed them as being reasonable and permitted by the fourth amendment. FISA lists them and the domestic wire tap laws lists them too.
Also, just because there is a law on the books, does not mean it applied in ever situation and circumstance. Laws are subject to being constitution and when that law comes into conflict with the constitution, it cannot apply. This is true even if it's a valid law that would apply under every other situation except the specific one that puts it in conflict with the constitution. OF course the proper way to determine the validity of that is to have a court rule on the constitutional conflict.
Any sitting president who would allow some other country to nab a former official and prosecute them for an act made by the government of the US, when the US hasn't even charged him with a crime deserves to be impeached and hung from a tree until dead, no matter how wrong that act may have been.
And the US should go to war immediately with any country attempting to do so. If the actions are that bad, then the US can prosecute them. Not some foreign country that we have been protecting for almost a century. At minimum, using military force to the fullest extent to secure their release and return even if deadly force is warranted.
I think your moral reasoning still has some problems. Wouldn't the moral thing to do is to allow the person who's life is on the line make the decision to end it instead of someone else?
I think maybe you are confusing moral with humane and compassion. They can be the same but not always. You see, if it's moral for someone to decide if a person's life is worth living without their consent when they are a lump of cells, then what makes it immoral for me to walk down the street shooting the starving homeless? And if we let the person make their own decision, wouldn't the moral thing be to make sure they are capable of informed consent and making a clear judgment? After all, it's their life but they need to understand how they will effect it.
What you mentioned about killing a defective kid may be humane in that they don't suffer, but it's no more moral then me shooting the protective helmets one the kids riding the short buss. BTW, I know a couple of the kids who ride the short bus and would never do anything to harm them. I do not think it would even be moral to allow or encourage them to off themselves because they wouldn't understand the consequences.
Actually, existing laws at the time gave the telecoms a complete defense if the government lied to them and claimed they had the authority to do the wire taps. Their problems is that the documentation to proves that was declared a national security secret which made it a felony for them to use their existing defense. The telecom immunity bill reflects this as it requires the telecoms to present the orders claiming the government had the authority presented to them and for the officials responsible for the orders to certify they gave them. They got immunity from nothing else or no other situation.
Now, as for morality, scold them if you want but it would be immoral of you to jail or fine them in any way for an act they did legally or had a complete defense from. I understand people are pissed and upset over this, but I do not think they understand what they are suggesting when they suggest imprisoning people for legal acts just because you think it should be wrong. Imagine what happens when a bunch of prudes get elected to power and start arresting people for sex outside of wedlock because it's immoral even though no law forbids it. How about the same for not cutting your damn hair you hippy? How about arresting a woman and her doctor for an abortion procedure that was needed to save the mom's life because she wouldn't survive an emergency open heart surgery while carrying a child? You know, there was no law present but some people think abortion is immoral no matter what.
Punishing people for morals is something that is very dangerous. You need to carefully consider the intent as well as the actions and legality of it. If it's that immoral, pass a law and wait until they violate it. Claiming that listening in on the conversations of people making international phone calls where one party is a terrorist, suspected terrorist or suspected of having ties with terrorist is not the same as genocide, slavery, or mass imprisonment in horrid conditions because of a person's heritage or religion. It simply does not rise to the same levels.
The problem here is that the telecoms already had immunity under existing law is certain documentation was presented to them. This has been in effect since 1968 when the original wire tap laws were put in place. Bush classified that documentation making it a felony containing jail time for the telecoms to disclose.
Basically, there are and was at the time ways to get wire taps legally with and without a warrant. The government or police or anyone on their behalf have to present certain documentation to the telecoms meeting the legal criteria which basically states that either a judge issued a warrant, they were getting a warrant, or the warrant wasn't needed and that the government claims was somehow authorized to get the warrants. If the telecoms have this, the law says (and said) they have a complete defense against any civil or criminal actions.
The immunity law didn't actually give them immunity, it gave them an opportunity to prove they had immunity. It did this by setting up a special court that would review the telecoms documentation, get the Attorney General's or whichever agency presented to certify they gave the order, and it it's real, the court tells the court holding the case that they have a compete defense and to drop actions against them and not allow it in any other court. It does this in an attempt to preserve national security secrets. Under the immunity law this bill would repeal, the only immunity the telecoms would have was what they already had which is where the government presented them the documentation in bad faith.
It doesn't mean a law wasn't broken, it just means that the telecoms can't be held to it if those conditions apply (the government presented them with the appearance of having a legal right to the information gathered). You can read the laws for yourself and I can link to them if you need me too.
A big problem in this is that it's politicized. Some were suing in an attempt to get information about the administrations actions, some were suing for publicity, some were suing in order to get the telecoms not to cooperate with the government and hamper Bush. Generally, when you see someone claim the telecoms need punished (despite them already having a complete defense), it will eventually boil back to Bush or Cheney being involved. Warrant-less wiretapping is going on to this day under the Obama administration and there is claims they even did it against a US congressman when on a trip abroad and you hear almost none of those people who spoke out against Bush, dragging Obama into the same hole. It's clearly political to most people involved in the complaining. Bits of information is being withheld on purpose from the rants, some people have no clue and are just fired up. The EFF should know better but they care more about politics then what's right which is evident in the postings they made about it. The ACLU was wanting to expose who was being tapped, it's political for them- notice how they do not care to much about it when obama does it.
You need to take a deep breath before reading this as I'm sure it will piss you off.
First of all, the courts have always ruled that warrants are not always needed in order for a search to be "reasonable" and in compliance with the fourth amendment. Furthermore, the courts have ruled that the right of sovereignty and national security makes searches at borders and various other places reasonable and in compliance with the Fourth Amendment regardless of warrants. This was even reflected with the first congress of this great nation crafting and passing the first law allowing border searched. These were mostly the framers of the constitution and the people who understood it at it's time of writing as well as signed it into effect. It's not likely a warrant would have been needed in the first place under the existing interpretations of the courts because at least one element was either out of the country or with a known enemy of the United States of America. Now that doesn't mean a warrant won't be needed, it just means that there is a likelihood that one was not be needed to satisfy the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.
Second, the laws in effect at the time of the TSP clearly reflected that sentiment both in American border and abroad when dealing with specific entities defined as foreign government or agents. The laws in effect also defined persons working with/aiding foreign government or foreign agents as foreign agents for the purpose of the laws and the lack of a warrant being necessary. Unfortunately for the president at the time, Terrorist, even ones we were at war with, were not included in the definition of foreign agents or governments so the exceptions written into law didn't apply.
Finally, the immunity wasn't immunity at all for the telecoms. The telecoms already had immunity from civil or criminal action if they were presented a warrant from a court or an authorized document signed by the Attorney General or an investigating officer under certain conditions. All the telecoms have to do is present the order the government gave them claiming they had the authority and they have a "complete defense against any civil or criminal action brought under this chapter or any other law"
The problem with them doing that seems to be that the orders are classified as national security secrets and would put them in violation of a felony containing jail time. The telecoms immunity does nothing more then set up a special court who when presented with a request, reviews the documentation presented to the telecoms, asks the AG's office to certify if it came from them or not, and if so, relays to the court the suit is being held that they have a complete defense and the case needs to be dropped without disclosing any of the national security information that has been classified. It goes on to clarify that no other court can take it up with some intent of gaining more information or harassing the telecoms indefinitely.
All the telecom immunity law that was passed does is provide a vehicle for the law that was existing at the time of the claimed violations to be effected without disclosing national security secrets or putting the telecoms in violation of federal criminal statutes.
Now, I do not disagree with your assessment of post facto in it's raw sentiment when applied liberally as you put it, but you are wrong on the immunity portion being post facto because it didn't provide anything that wasn't already there except for a means to act on it. Congress could have worded it better to reflect that, but they were clear when they specified what documentation the telecoms needed in order to get the immunity. That documentation was the same documentation necessary for the government to get the telecoms to wire tap in any other situation, with or without a warrant, as legally spelled out by the laws at the time. In short, if the government presented them with an order of any kind that was allowable under the existing law claiming the government had the authority to do the tap, the telecoms got their complete defense. If they didn't, they the immunity didn't apply. That is why the order needs to be presented to the special court and the AG's office or whoever issued the order under color of law needs to certify they actually issued it.
What's your point? He was when the TSP was set up and when the violations supposedly occurred prompting the telecoms immunity law in the first place.
The point of mentioning him was that even though he might have fooled some of your into thinking he was stupid, in fact he wasn't or his handlers wasn't depending on if you buy into the conspiracy or not, so it's highly likely that the telecoms have their asses covered.
Sovereign immunity is only applicable if the government didn't already give permission for a lawsuit. Evidently, the law has been specifically worded to exclude the federal government from recovery of civil damages which seems contrary to what I remember. It appears that H.R.3162 was passed as part of the patriot act in 2001 which specifically excluded the United State from being a target of a civil lawsuit concerning this.
However, it appears the ability to sue the US government has been moved to 2712 which provides the ability to sue for action of actual damages or $10,000 a pop whichever is greater plus litigation costs.
So yea, your right, sovereign immunity could stop people from suing the government. However, the government waved that right when it gave permission in law. However, it should be noted that all actions against the government under that section appears to have a statute of limitation of 2 years. Same with suing the telecoms. So any lawsuit not attempted within 2 years of the action
It also appears that lawsuits against the telecoms would run their statute of limitations in 2 years too. However both set the clock on the time of the claim and it defines the claim as "The claim shall accrue on the date upon which the claimant first has a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation." so some claims might be able to be presented.
Under existing laws, if the government presented the telecoms with documentation claiming the government had authority to get the information, that documentation would be an affirmative defense against any criminal or civil action against the telecoms. This was in the title 3 provisions of the omnibus crime whatever act passed in 1968 and is still unchanged and in effect today.
The problem is that the documentation needed to prove the government claimed to have the authority is classified as national security secretes so giving it to the courts creates a criminal felony situation where the telecom's employees could be imprisoned for exercising a legal right of defense. Now the telecom immunity law was supposed to allow a court and the justice department to affirm whether or not documentation was presented sufficient enough to trip the affirmative defense provisions or not. Removing this would either require the telecoms to lose the civil lawsuit by default, in which an appeals court would likely over turn, or they will get immunity from prosecution and present the papers in court and national security information would be disclosed.
More then likely, the judge would review it in ex parte and dismiss the cases under the existing laws without disclosing the details at all. An appeals court already ruled government didn't have to allow this to happen which is why the immunity law was created in the first place.
Anyways, it would most likely present a situation where a case or two goes all the way to the supreme court before it gets ruled on the side of the telecoms once and for all. Half witted people are too eager to inject politics into this and let that over ride any sense of fairness. It's just wrong.
Save your breath, this is all about charging windmills and being too ignorant to understand they are being manipulated and told to look in the other direction while something serious goes on. The weak will follow the lead who can play them the easiest. For some, it's the tele-evangelist saying give me money or god will kill my dog (or was it him), for others, it's politicians acting like they are squeaky clean by playing on the emotions of others to hide their own dirty work.
Here is the thing, the Telecoms already have immunity under existing laws if the administration presented them with acceptable documentation claiming to of had the authority to gather the information. Now, contrary to what anyone might think, Bush isn't dumb, I mean he got elected twice and convinced congress to almost unanimously take us into two wars as well as not pull us out by ending the funding. Some will claim that it was the people pulling Bush's strings that did that and even if it's true, there is nothing to make anyone believe that they magically stopped with the NSA TSP. So what I'm getting at is, it's highly likely that the telecoms were presented with authentic enough documentation that they will slide out from under any liability for breaking any laws. That always was the law ever since 1968 when the first wire tap laws were made. The problem the telecoms had was that the administration was claiming national security secrete making it a felony to present the documentation that would serve as their complete defense.
What this was originally about is sueing the telecoms to get information on who was being watched by the government so as they could either sue the government (and be rich bitch), sue the telecoms who couldn't answer with their affirmative defense without ricking prison time, (rich again bitch) or inform certain people of those actions the government was taking against them. This bill being considered does nothing but allow that to happen but the judicial system isn't really that stupid. Most likely, Obama would allow (either by court case or congress acting on his behalf) certain judges, most likely FISA judges to view the documentation the government presented the telecoms and affirm if it was official enough to satisfy the law for the complete defense. This means that the telecoms will still end up with immunity and the information will still remain secrete. Meanwhile, something more sinister and serious will be going on because Bashing Bush is just as important as Brittany Spears losing 5 lbs by taking ex-lax or what ever she has done lately that's more important then anything else.
It's just something to keep the idiots occupied. Bread and circuses so to speak.
One of the problems leading up to the revolution was if you spoke out against the king or England, or one of the companies chartered under them (which mostly set up the colonies) they could trump up charges against you and make you defend against them. The presented the big problem because you were presumed guilty until you could be proven innocent and the accuser had all the power. It could effectively silence speech which is one of the reasons why we have constitutionally protected free speech and it concentrates on political speech.
This is different in the UK now but as others have pointed out, that is a criminal trial verses a civil trial. In a civil trial, and accusation is basically made and a plea that it violates some law that entitles you to action or satisfaction or to be made hole again. That is a generic explanation but the concept is basically, you will still have to defend yourself in a libel case because the circumstances of the libel can be shown easily. That is to say, libel is where something is in print and I can take a copy and claim you had no right to say it while also claiming it tarnished my good name. Now where the big difference is, in America, all you have to do is show that you believed what was said to be true where in England, it pretty much has to be true- then the intent of why it was said can be weighed against it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes and no. The situation surrounding Sklyarov isn't as cut and dry as it seems. You see, the DMCA is spelled out in the WIPO "WCT" and "WPPT" treaties. Russia didn't sign on to them until 2008 or 2009. The Sklyarov case happened in 2001 but the so called violations happened before that.
Now the problem with Sklyarov is that he distributed his program to US citizens inside the US borders which places his actions within US jurisdiction by extension of commerce. If he limited his distribution to only the countries in which the software was legal, then I would be totally against it. However, existing treaties between the US and Russia allowed for the jurisdiction to be extended. It's primarily used as a way to punish fraud and scams and at least in this case, was used to enforce copyright law. It basically says when they do business in each others markets, the laws of the country's market prevail. I.E. You can't use US law in Russia and you can't use Russian law in the US when conducting business and they conflict. by conflict, it's a matter of nationality where a US citizen or Russian citizen is expected to follow their national laws when outside their country unless the visiting country has a law specifically allowing it. An example of this is drug laws, in many European nations it's legal to posses, use, and deal certain drugs that are illegal in the US. Simply having no law banning it would mean that a US national would have to follow the law at home except when there is a law specifically allowing the behavior. So if there is no law, US law applies to the US national, if there is a law, the foreign country law applies.
When Dmitry's physical presence came into US jurisdiction, he was able to be held even though he didn't willfully violate US law (as the December trial found). Willfully is important because the DMCA has a state of mind contention where a person has to pretty much know he is doing something wrong.
Now do I agree with it, no I do not. Especially considering he was eventually freed without a crime being determined to actually happen. However, this case can't be used as precedent because of the treaties that allowed it to move forward. There are no treaties supporting Spain's intention or the mechanism in which they intend to enact them. Basically, a half crazy judge in Spain all the sudden declared he has jurisdiction with nothing in international law supporting it. Without looking at the details of the situation, it would appear that they are similar, but they are not similar outside of someone potentially being arrested. In the Dmitry case, the laws of both countries through the process of treaties supported the action. In the Spain situation and the potential arrest of US citizens that have never been charged for a crime, it's just one country that can support the action and that is shaky to boot.
What Spain has essentially done with this is claim jurisdiction to the entire world without regard to any sovereignty existing.
*I though "so let's get this right" meant you were going to put an effort behind your intentions. Obviously that didn't happen.
What I said and continue to say is that when a citizen is in their jurisdiction and violates a law, they can be held accountable. When a citizen is not in their jurisdiction ans they claim a law was violated only to arrest them in the future, the government should use all force availible to secure their release. This is not a two tier system, it's actually the American judicial system and the premise of sovereignty.
I'm sorry, I didn't know that saying something that presented the facts to someone who was confused was too long for you to bother reading was a Joke. I guess my point was a joke too, your not a comedian so stop thinking so highly of yourself.
I think you missed the part where I said "he might have fooled some of your into thinking he was stupid, in fact he wasn't or his handlers wasn't depending on if you buy into the conspiracy or not".
Now I can take you at your word that he is dumb, but he managed to pull the wool over your eyes many times with taking us into war and many other things. But then I would have to ask you, what does that make you and everyone else when a dumb man did all that he did while it being unpopular at the time? Face it, he isn't as dumb as you think, he just made you think that so you wouldn't expect some of the things he did.
I don't know, what do you think the words "he might have fooled some of your into thinking he was stupid, in fact he wasn't or his handlers wasn't depending on if you buy into the conspiracy or not," actually mean? I mean I acknowledge that people think he had handlers who were the brains behind everything, is it just that you feel the need to trash bush so much that you need to be redundent while attempting to ignore what I said and refute it by saying the same things?
Bush wasn't clueless, he just wasn't giving his political opponents ammunition. Obama's biggest critics user Obama's own words to criticize his positions. Your right, Obama will be just as shitty as Bush, except the difference will end up being Obama serve 4 years while Bush served 8. Every time Obama speaks, he says something to validate his opponents. Every speech that knocks off someone's favorite program it creates a bit of disdain for him. Hell, the death panels criticism in his health care reform only got traction because of Obama's own words to a woman who bragged about her mom getting a pacemaker at 100 years of age and living another 6 years and counting then asked how his health care plan would address stuff like that. Obama said she needed to considered just taking a pain pill instead of getting the surgery that allowed her to live another comfortable 6+ years.
Don't be fooled into thinking exposure is better. Obama should have had the health care through by now. Little gaffs like the one about just taking a pain pill instead of a life saving surgery has stopped something that he had enough party support to force through if he would have kept his mouth shut. Now he has to pander to people inside his own party to get support for the measures and the more he speaks on it, the more other people find things they do not like. Most people might ignore the news channel of the talking heads on the radio, but they listen to the president of the United States of America and more and more people end up getting scared or pissed off over what they hear him saying. They thought it was just fud until he starts reinforcing the crap with his exposure.
Wow, someone modded this as flaimbait. I guess ignoring the facts and and modding things down is the tactic of choice for those who can't back their positions and political ideals.
The bottom line is that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever at all that the telecoms knew what they were doing was against the law. The law sets up a situation where they are exonerated for their part if the government follows a few procedures and pretends to have a legal right to the information. The GP was wrong, wrong, wrong, and did little more then inject opinions about small pieces of facts then contrive outcomes of intent as if he has some special insight into the situation. Of course the facts tend to work against him which is why I posted that. And of course, I'm posting this so the comment wouldn't be buried by the down mod and go unnoticed.
That's a shame that you are publicly admitting to remaining willfully ignorant and intellectually lazy.
I hope that works out for you. Sadly, it probably won't and you will forever be in the dark and complaining about crap you have no clue about while it only gets worse right underneath your own nose. I'm thinking that your the type of guy who can sit in the middle of a room while someone turns the lights on and off and you wouldn't notice a thing.
I hope this post isn't too long for you that you do not read it. Maybe you could try hanging out at a site that allows pictures to be posted so it's not so troublesome for you to read.
Nope, I'm saying the US should protect it's citizens and not allow them to be political hostages for some bent idiots crazed on ideological points. In fact, I would expect any country to protect and stand behind their citizens in the same way, the topic just happened to of been about a US Citizen.
I'm sorry, did I not mention that the paper work is classified as national security secrets and it would be a felony for anyone at the telecoms to disclose that information punishable by 5 to life with the possibility of the death sentence?
If I did fail to mention it, that would be because it's only reported all over the place that Bush classified the documents. Most Bush bashers claim he only did it to hide his tracks from FOIA and others ventures. Obviously, it's more then that because Obama has been president for 9 months or more and not only are they still classified, Obama sent the justice department to court to defend the telecom immunity law back in feb when the EFF challenged it unsuccessfully. I sort of just assumed it was already known to anyone paying attention.
Ignore the facts and make silly statements elsewhere.
I'm sorry, but how can someone who pretends to be so intelligent come off so ignorant? I mean you totally ignored what I said in order to grandstand your semi correct point and you have failed to even remotely investigate the situation in law or the details involved. I guess I will have to educate you on a couple of things.
We are not talking about democratic countries, we are talking about the United States of America. And in this specific country, intent is a component of a lot of our laws. Killing someone can get you life in prison, 20 years, 10 years 5 years, 6 months or no punishment at all depending on your intent. Intent contains state of mind. Generally, there is premeditated, aggravated, recklessly, knowingly, unknowingly, and a few more that I will leave you and google to discover on your own. Now keep this in mind because the law says, and has always said, that when the government presents the legal authority to receive the information, the telecoms have a complete defense.
Now reread that and pay attention this time because you totally skipped over it the first time in order to blabber your speech. Here are the points, you need to understand, just in case your not native english and the words confuse you. The law already provides immunity in the form of a complete defense. The immunity law that we are concerned with in the article only provides immunity when it would have already applied as a complete defense under the other laws. This is because when the government presents the legal authority to have something but doesn't really have the authority, the telecoms unknowingly participated in the crime. And since this crime is committed on specific instances and not with every action, the telecoms do not know which incident is a crime until after the fact and someone points it out to them.
Nothing is retroactive about this immunity. You are talking out of your ass due to ignorance and intellectual laziness prompted by political motivation and disdain. It's riddled throughout your comment and is obvious to anyone capable of critical thinking and a little self motivated research.
The law in question has been amended by the patriot act but the original stated the same intent and was in existence since 1968. It provides that if the government presents the legal authority for the tap, the telecom has a complete defense against any criminal or civil action. The telecom is not require to validate any warrant, order or legislative authority the government cites on the request, they are simply obligated by law to comply when it is presented. Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 states, 2520 A good faith reliance on a court order or on the provisions of section 2518(7) of this chapter shall constitute a complete defense to any civil or criminal action brought under this cha
These guy are doing neither. They are grandstanding, pandering, and one of them is prepping for election next year.
Their bill is completely a waste of time as both the government and telecoms enjoy a 2 year statute of limitations from the time anyone could reasonably know they were subject to one of the taps. That time has pretty much long past given all the talk and concern about the subject.
However, just in case it isn't for someone living in a cave somewhere, you need to look at what the immunity bill actually did. It set up a special court. This court's job was to review documents presented by the telecoms when they get sued for the TSP or any government wire tap. It then asked the Attorney General or which ever agency authorized by law at the time if they gave the order. If both, the telecom has an order, and the agency certifies it, then the case is dropped. If the telecoms do not have an order or if the government claims it's fake, they do not get the immunity.
Now, how is this different then before the immunity law was passed? Actually not by much except that it allows for a way that the orders can be reviewed without disclosing national security secrets. You see, existing laws already gave the telecoms a "complete defense" against all criminal and civil actions brought against them if the government gave them an order claiming they had a legal right to the information under an existing law. That is what the immunity bill covered too. The problem is that using that complete defense was impossible because the orders were classified as national security secrets. In fact, they still are classified so their importance apparently goes beyond hiding Bush's actions. Unfortunately, there is no way to disclose the orders or the contents of the order without coming into violation of a felony containing prison terms.
All that will happen without the immunity law is that the court will have to set up some way to view the documents without putting anyone in violation of the law as well as not disclosing any secrete information. In short, the court will have to recreate the provisions in the immunity law to ensure justice is served and the telecoms have their complete defense as the law stated since 1968.
This is nothing more then political maneuvering. They probably did a pole and found that a lot of their supporters were uninformed people who didn't possess the wherewithal to find out for themselves and they could distract or manipulate something else. One of them, Senator Russell Feingold, is most likely pandering for votes.
Your making the mistake of assuming the telecoms knew that what they were doing was both illegal or immoral. There is nothing to indicate that they were aware of this when it happened. In fact, most of the situation indicates that they only knew after the fact of the action.
Or do you have some special insight that no one else does? BTW, if the orders weren't national security secrets, the telecoms would have gotten immunity without the newer immunity law. Also, the immunity law doesn't cover acts the telecoms knew to be illegal at the time they were performed. Try reading is sometime. Compare what it requires for immunity to what the telecoms were required to accept to do wire taps.
What do they call that when a limit to the options are presented as if they are the only options acailible? Oh yes, a false dichotomy.
The problem is that warrants weren't ever "always needed" to get a wire tap. Some wire taps only require certification that the government had a legal right to the information. This was true even before the patriot act, FISA, and was true after them too.
So option 3 would be, do business as normal and comply with government requests as the law requires them to do, and wonder exactly what illegal taps people are talking about.
Option 3 is what is known as operating under the color of law. This is where someone pretends there is a law or legal backing for their actions when knowing there isn't. This is what the government did and it's evident because the immunity law that we are concerned with only grants immunity of the same orders and requirements can be validated. It's probable that the telecoms didn't know they were violating the law at all until after the fact. And even before the immunity law, the telecoms had a complete defense against any criminal or civil action when this happened. The immunity laws was nothing more then a vehicle to get that complete defense because the orders are classified as national security secrets and disclosing them would create a felony charge with jail time.
There is no evidence that anyone in the government asked the telecoms to break the law.
There is plenty of evidence that the government asked the telecoms to do something that also happened to be against the law, but there is no evidence that the telecoms knew anything about the illegality of the actions when doing it. In fact, all evidence, including the telecom immunity provisions this bill is concerned with over turning, indicates that the telecoms did not know what they were doing was illegal.
There always was ways to get wire taps without warrants. There has always been legal proccedures for government departments or investigating officers to get phone tapes without a warrant. It involves special circumstances and a statement that the person requesting the tap has the legal authority to do so with a signature by some responsible people. The AG is one but others are capable of doing it to. The telecom immunity law specifically require this statement detailing the government had a legal right to the information and it required the agency (AG's office) to certify if they issues the request or not. Only then does the cases get dropped and become barred from being brought back up.
That immunity isn't anything new either. Existing law before the immunity outlines a complete defense from all criminal and civil actions against the telecoms if the government presents them with documentation claiming they have the legal right to the information. All the immunity law does is provide a vehicle so the complete defense laws can be used without violating national security secrets and placing the telecoms in violation of federal laws. The documents concerning the TSP have been classified and disclosing them or information on them would be a felony containing jail time.
The telecoms do not need to be forced, coerced or threatened, they just need the government to act under the color of law and they have a complete defense by statute. The immunity laws this bill is concerned with did nothing but protect the telecoms when the government acted under the color of law. The reason this is provided is because the telecoms are required by law to cooperate with the government for providing taps and facilities to make it easier.
Actually no they do not need to get judicial approval. In general yes, but there are situations and conditions that allow wire taps without warrants being issued and the courts have already backed them as being reasonable and permitted by the fourth amendment. FISA lists them and the domestic wire tap laws lists them too.
Also, just because there is a law on the books, does not mean it applied in ever situation and circumstance. Laws are subject to being constitution and when that law comes into conflict with the constitution, it cannot apply. This is true even if it's a valid law that would apply under every other situation except the specific one that puts it in conflict with the constitution. OF course the proper way to determine the validity of that is to have a court rule on the constitutional conflict.
Any sitting president who would allow some other country to nab a former official and prosecute them for an act made by the government of the US, when the US hasn't even charged him with a crime deserves to be impeached and hung from a tree until dead, no matter how wrong that act may have been.
And the US should go to war immediately with any country attempting to do so. If the actions are that bad, then the US can prosecute them. Not some foreign country that we have been protecting for almost a century. At minimum, using military force to the fullest extent to secure their release and return even if deadly force is warranted.
I think your moral reasoning still has some problems. Wouldn't the moral thing to do is to allow the person who's life is on the line make the decision to end it instead of someone else?
I think maybe you are confusing moral with humane and compassion. They can be the same but not always. You see, if it's moral for someone to decide if a person's life is worth living without their consent when they are a lump of cells, then what makes it immoral for me to walk down the street shooting the starving homeless? And if we let the person make their own decision, wouldn't the moral thing be to make sure they are capable of informed consent and making a clear judgment? After all, it's their life but they need to understand how they will effect it.
What you mentioned about killing a defective kid may be humane in that they don't suffer, but it's no more moral then me shooting the protective helmets one the kids riding the short buss. BTW, I know a couple of the kids who ride the short bus and would never do anything to harm them. I do not think it would even be moral to allow or encourage them to off themselves because they wouldn't understand the consequences.
Actually, existing laws at the time gave the telecoms a complete defense if the government lied to them and claimed they had the authority to do the wire taps. Their problems is that the documentation to proves that was declared a national security secret which made it a felony for them to use their existing defense. The telecom immunity bill reflects this as it requires the telecoms to present the orders claiming the government had the authority presented to them and for the officials responsible for the orders to certify they gave them. They got immunity from nothing else or no other situation.
Now, as for morality, scold them if you want but it would be immoral of you to jail or fine them in any way for an act they did legally or had a complete defense from. I understand people are pissed and upset over this, but I do not think they understand what they are suggesting when they suggest imprisoning people for legal acts just because you think it should be wrong. Imagine what happens when a bunch of prudes get elected to power and start arresting people for sex outside of wedlock because it's immoral even though no law forbids it. How about the same for not cutting your damn hair you hippy? How about arresting a woman and her doctor for an abortion procedure that was needed to save the mom's life because she wouldn't survive an emergency open heart surgery while carrying a child? You know, there was no law present but some people think abortion is immoral no matter what.
Punishing people for morals is something that is very dangerous. You need to carefully consider the intent as well as the actions and legality of it. If it's that immoral, pass a law and wait until they violate it. Claiming that listening in on the conversations of people making international phone calls where one party is a terrorist, suspected terrorist or suspected of having ties with terrorist is not the same as genocide, slavery, or mass imprisonment in horrid conditions because of a person's heritage or religion. It simply does not rise to the same levels.
The problem here is that the telecoms already had immunity under existing law is certain documentation was presented to them. This has been in effect since 1968 when the original wire tap laws were put in place. Bush classified that documentation making it a felony containing jail time for the telecoms to disclose.
Basically, there are and was at the time ways to get wire taps legally with and without a warrant. The government or police or anyone on their behalf have to present certain documentation to the telecoms meeting the legal criteria which basically states that either a judge issued a warrant, they were getting a warrant, or the warrant wasn't needed and that the government claims was somehow authorized to get the warrants. If the telecoms have this, the law says (and said) they have a complete defense against any civil or criminal actions.
The immunity law didn't actually give them immunity, it gave them an opportunity to prove they had immunity. It did this by setting up a special court that would review the telecoms documentation, get the Attorney General's or whichever agency presented to certify they gave the order, and it it's real, the court tells the court holding the case that they have a compete defense and to drop actions against them and not allow it in any other court. It does this in an attempt to preserve national security secrets. Under the immunity law this bill would repeal, the only immunity the telecoms would have was what they already had which is where the government presented them the documentation in bad faith.
It doesn't mean a law wasn't broken, it just means that the telecoms can't be held to it if those conditions apply (the government presented them with the appearance of having a legal right to the information gathered). You can read the laws for yourself and I can link to them if you need me too.
A big problem in this is that it's politicized. Some were suing in an attempt to get information about the administrations actions, some were suing for publicity, some were suing in order to get the telecoms not to cooperate with the government and hamper Bush. Generally, when you see someone claim the telecoms need punished (despite them already having a complete defense), it will eventually boil back to Bush or Cheney being involved. Warrant-less wiretapping is going on to this day under the Obama administration and there is claims they even did it against a US congressman when on a trip abroad and you hear almost none of those people who spoke out against Bush, dragging Obama into the same hole. It's clearly political to most people involved in the complaining. Bits of information is being withheld on purpose from the rants, some people have no clue and are just fired up. The EFF should know better but they care more about politics then what's right which is evident in the postings they made about it. The ACLU was wanting to expose who was being tapped, it's political for them- notice how they do not care to much about it when obama does it.
You need to take a deep breath before reading this as I'm sure it will piss you off.
First of all, the courts have always ruled that warrants are not always needed in order for a search to be "reasonable" and in compliance with the fourth amendment. Furthermore, the courts have ruled that the right of sovereignty and national security makes searches at borders and various other places reasonable and in compliance with the Fourth Amendment regardless of warrants. This was even reflected with the first congress of this great nation crafting and passing the first law allowing border searched. These were mostly the framers of the constitution and the people who understood it at it's time of writing as well as signed it into effect. It's not likely a warrant would have been needed in the first place under the existing interpretations of the courts because at least one element was either out of the country or with a known enemy of the United States of America. Now that doesn't mean a warrant won't be needed, it just means that there is a likelihood that one was not be needed to satisfy the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.
Second, the laws in effect at the time of the TSP clearly reflected that sentiment both in American border and abroad when dealing with specific entities defined as foreign government or agents. The laws in effect also defined persons working with/aiding foreign government or foreign agents as foreign agents for the purpose of the laws and the lack of a warrant being necessary. Unfortunately for the president at the time, Terrorist, even ones we were at war with, were not included in the definition of foreign agents or governments so the exceptions written into law didn't apply.
Finally, the immunity wasn't immunity at all for the telecoms. The telecoms already had immunity from civil or criminal action if they were presented a warrant from a court or an authorized document signed by the Attorney General or an investigating officer under certain conditions. All the telecoms have to do is present the order the government gave them claiming they had the authority and they have a "complete defense against any civil or criminal action brought under this chapter or any other law"
The problem with them doing that seems to be that the orders are classified as national security secrets and would put them in violation of a felony containing jail time. The telecoms immunity does nothing more then set up a special court who when presented with a request, reviews the documentation presented to the telecoms, asks the AG's office to certify if it came from them or not, and if so, relays to the court the suit is being held that they have a complete defense and the case needs to be dropped without disclosing any of the national security information that has been classified. It goes on to clarify that no other court can take it up with some intent of gaining more information or harassing the telecoms indefinitely.
All the telecom immunity law that was passed does is provide a vehicle for the law that was existing at the time of the claimed violations to be effected without disclosing national security secrets or putting the telecoms in violation of federal criminal statutes.
Now, I do not disagree with your assessment of post facto in it's raw sentiment when applied liberally as you put it, but you are wrong on the immunity portion being post facto because it didn't provide anything that wasn't already there except for a means to act on it. Congress could have worded it better to reflect that, but they were clear when they specified what documentation the telecoms needed in order to get the immunity. That documentation was the same documentation necessary for the government to get the telecoms to wire tap in any other situation, with or without a warrant, as legally spelled out by the laws at the time. In short, if the government presented them with an order of any kind that was allowable under the existing law claiming the government had the authority to do the tap, the telecoms got their complete defense. If they didn't, they the immunity didn't apply. That is why the order needs to be presented to the special court and the AG's office or whoever issued the order under color of law needs to certify they actually issued it.
What's your point? He was when the TSP was set up and when the violations supposedly occurred prompting the telecoms immunity law in the first place.
The point of mentioning him was that even though he might have fooled some of your into thinking he was stupid, in fact he wasn't or his handlers wasn't depending on if you buy into the conspiracy or not, so it's highly likely that the telecoms have their asses covered.
Sovereign immunity is only applicable if the government didn't already give permission for a lawsuit. Evidently, the law has been specifically worded to exclude the federal government from recovery of civil damages which seems contrary to what I remember. It appears that H.R.3162 was passed as part of the patriot act in 2001 which specifically excluded the United State from being a target of a civil lawsuit concerning this.
However, it appears the ability to sue the US government has been moved to 2712 which provides the ability to sue for action of actual damages or $10,000 a pop whichever is greater plus litigation costs.
So yea, your right, sovereign immunity could stop people from suing the government. However, the government waved that right when it gave permission in law. However, it should be noted that all actions against the government under that section appears to have a statute of limitation of 2 years. Same with suing the telecoms. So any lawsuit not attempted within 2 years of the action
It also appears that lawsuits against the telecoms would run their statute of limitations in 2 years too. However both set the clock on the time of the claim and it defines the claim as "The claim shall accrue on the date upon which the claimant first has a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation." so some claims might be able to be presented.
Nothing will happen.
Under existing laws, if the government presented the telecoms with documentation claiming the government had authority to get the information, that documentation would be an affirmative defense against any criminal or civil action against the telecoms. This was in the title 3 provisions of the omnibus crime whatever act passed in 1968 and is still unchanged and in effect today.
The problem is that the documentation needed to prove the government claimed to have the authority is classified as national security secretes so giving it to the courts creates a criminal felony situation where the telecom's employees could be imprisoned for exercising a legal right of defense. Now the telecom immunity law was supposed to allow a court and the justice department to affirm whether or not documentation was presented sufficient enough to trip the affirmative defense provisions or not. Removing this would either require the telecoms to lose the civil lawsuit by default, in which an appeals court would likely over turn, or they will get immunity from prosecution and present the papers in court and national security information would be disclosed.
More then likely, the judge would review it in ex parte and dismiss the cases under the existing laws without disclosing the details at all. An appeals court already ruled government didn't have to allow this to happen which is why the immunity law was created in the first place.
Anyways, it would most likely present a situation where a case or two goes all the way to the supreme court before it gets ruled on the side of the telecoms once and for all. Half witted people are too eager to inject politics into this and let that over ride any sense of fairness. It's just wrong.
Save your breath, this is all about charging windmills and being too ignorant to understand they are being manipulated and told to look in the other direction while something serious goes on. The weak will follow the lead who can play them the easiest. For some, it's the tele-evangelist saying give me money or god will kill my dog (or was it him), for others, it's politicians acting like they are squeaky clean by playing on the emotions of others to hide their own dirty work.
Here is the thing, the Telecoms already have immunity under existing laws if the administration presented them with acceptable documentation claiming to of had the authority to gather the information. Now, contrary to what anyone might think, Bush isn't dumb, I mean he got elected twice and convinced congress to almost unanimously take us into two wars as well as not pull us out by ending the funding. Some will claim that it was the people pulling Bush's strings that did that and even if it's true, there is nothing to make anyone believe that they magically stopped with the NSA TSP. So what I'm getting at is, it's highly likely that the telecoms were presented with authentic enough documentation that they will slide out from under any liability for breaking any laws. That always was the law ever since 1968 when the first wire tap laws were made. The problem the telecoms had was that the administration was claiming national security secrete making it a felony to present the documentation that would serve as their complete defense.
What this was originally about is sueing the telecoms to get information on who was being watched by the government so as they could either sue the government (and be rich bitch), sue the telecoms who couldn't answer with their affirmative defense without ricking prison time, (rich again bitch) or inform certain people of those actions the government was taking against them. This bill being considered does nothing but allow that to happen but the judicial system isn't really that stupid. Most likely, Obama would allow (either by court case or congress acting on his behalf) certain judges, most likely FISA judges to view the documentation the government presented the telecoms and affirm if it was official enough to satisfy the law for the complete defense. This means that the telecoms will still end up with immunity and the information will still remain secrete. Meanwhile, something more sinister and serious will be going on because Bashing Bush is just as important as Brittany Spears losing 5 lbs by taking ex-lax or what ever she has done lately that's more important then anything else.
It's just something to keep the idiots occupied. Bread and circuses so to speak.
You also forgot french people occupying Mexico. Zorro used a whip just as much as his sword.
It was inspired across the pond.
One of the problems leading up to the revolution was if you spoke out against the king or England, or one of the companies chartered under them (which mostly set up the colonies) they could trump up charges against you and make you defend against them. The presented the big problem because you were presumed guilty until you could be proven innocent and the accuser had all the power. It could effectively silence speech which is one of the reasons why we have constitutionally protected free speech and it concentrates on political speech.
This is different in the UK now but as others have pointed out, that is a criminal trial verses a civil trial. In a civil trial, and accusation is basically made and a plea that it violates some law that entitles you to action or satisfaction or to be made hole again. That is a generic explanation but the concept is basically, you will still have to defend yourself in a libel case because the circumstances of the libel can be shown easily. That is to say, libel is where something is in print and I can take a copy and claim you had no right to say it while also claiming it tarnished my good name. Now where the big difference is, in America, all you have to do is show that you believed what was said to be true where in England, it pretty much has to be true- then the intent of why it was said can be weighed against it.