Senators Push To Strip Telco ImmunityCongress 'short circuited' courts constitutional role... 08:50AM Tuesday Sep 29 2009 by Karl Bodetags: legal · business · privacy · wirelessDespite the Obama administration's decision to support immunity for the phone companies involved in the government's warrantless wiretapping program, a group of senator's are trying to strip the telco's of this protection, notes Techdirt. "Congress should not have short-circuited the courts' constitutional role in assessing the legality of the program," notes Russ Feingold, who with Chris Dodd and Jeff Merkley is pushing a new law to repeal immunity. "If the programs were actually legal, then let a court say that," notes Masnick. "If the programs were illegal, then there is no good reason to have made the telcos immune." Of course this was never about reason, it was about protecting the phone companies from billions in penalties and Uncle Sam from any further investigations into the depth of our domestic wiretap practices.
Related:- Wednesday Evening Links
- Thursday Morning Links
- Thursday Evening Links
- Friday Evening Links
- Monday Evening Links
- Wednesday Evening Links
- Friday Evening Links
- Wednesday Evening Links
|
 jc100
join:2002-04-10
| Hey Hey I've always liked Chris Dodd.... Most times, he often works on the RIGHT ISSUES. Feingold does some memorable things too. Good luck climbing this mounting with nothing more than high hopes and not a chance in hell in your favor. Still, it's good to know what people actually think of their constituents once in a while. | |
|  | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Hey Hey said by jc100  :I've always liked Chris Dodd.... Most times, he often works on the RIGHT ISSUES. Feingold does some memorable things too. Good luck climbing this mounting with nothing more than high hopes and not a chance in hell in your favor. Still, it's good to know what people actually think of their constituents once in a while. Maybe you want to go check on Senator Dodd and how he wrote the AIG bonuses into the law that bailed them out and then cried foul until an aide reminded him he put that provision in.
 | |
| 
footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO | Obama losing control? The President is having trouble getting his health care bill passed and now senators are openly opposing his position on this. Is he losing control of his party this soon?
--
The goggles! They do nothing! - McBain | |
| | jc100
join:2002-04-10
2 edits | Re: Obama losing control? I wouldn't call it losing control.... I would call it people thinking for themselves. It's nice for a change. The last 6 years under Bush saw nothing but a Rubber Stamp Drone ever so willing to pass MISTAKE after MISTAKE no questions asked. A man without dissent is a man who cannot truly lead properly. People must give opinions and offer insight into matters. Here here to these two. At least Obama isn't surrounded by 100 percent "YES MEN" as per previous President Emeritus, who disgraced this country in more ways than one. | |
| | | | | | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
| Re: Obama losing control? Hm... Did someone fail to go to school and learn the art of reading. WHERE DID I SAY the democrats were doing "OK". I said Feingold and Dodd were focusing on the RIGHT ISSUES. At least some people care about their constituents. No where did I state the rest were doing any bit better. Matter of fact, I said it takes dissent to keep a leader in check. Something BUSH DID NOT HAVE and what got us in the mess we're in. Ay?
As for the War in Iraq and Afghanistan... Who got us there....Do I really need to answer that question? 9/11? Do I need to even go there to say Bush screwed up Big time on handling everything.
In terms of Obama's performance, I'm NOT impressed. I hope his health care passes, but his overall performance is NOT AMUSING ME.
A) We should have NEVER given Immunity to these Phone Companies. Bush and Obama Supported.
B) Obama needs to focus on getting our ass OUT of these ENDLESS wars that Bush got us into. You want to know what is bankrupting this country? Try the cost of funding TWO WARS with no end in sight!!!! How many jobs could the TRILLION DOLLARS we wasted have created?
C) STOP BAILING OUT COMPANIES. Bush 700 Billion and Obama 1.5 Billion. Paltry to the SUM of 6 TRILLION Bush spent in his 8 years and added to our national deficit, none the less. However, companies DID NOT deserve a dime.
Maybe, before you JUMP to conclusions, YOU TAKE THE TIME to read my posts.... DODD AND FEINGOLD are on the RIGHT ISSUES. Frankly, Republicans can go to HELL.. and Democrats need to change their tune or follow due course. | |
| | | | | | | | | 
Kilroy
Premium,MVM
join:2002-11-21
Ann Arbor, MI
 ·WOW Internet and C..
| Obama should have known from the start that he would only have one term in office. Too much damage was done to repair in four short years, it didn't matter who won the election they were only getting four years unless they managed a major miracle. The situation isn't going to improve any time soon.
Back on topic, I don't see how congress approving anything is going to change the situation, unless it doesn't have to go before the president to be signed. Nothing stopping him from vetoing any bill from becoming law and the telcos have the cash to buy the votes they need, as we have seen time and time again. We have the best politicians that money can buy.
This may all be a publicity stunt and they know they have no chance on getting this through, but it makes them look good.
--
When will the people realize that with DRM they aren't purchasing anything? | |
| | | | | ace1974
join:2007-06-09
Goldsboro, NC
| Re: Obama losing control? said by Kilroy :Obama should have known from the start that he would only have one term in office. Too much damage was done to repair in four short years, it didn't matter who won the election they were only getting four years unless they managed a major miracle. The situation isn't going to improve any time soon. Back on topic, I don't see how congress approving anything is going to change the situation, unless it doesn't have to go before the president to be signed. Nothing stopping him from vetoing any bill from becoming law and the telcos have the cash to buy the votes they need, as we have seen time and time again. We have the best politicians that money can buy. This may all be a publicity stunt and they know they have no chance on getting this through, but it makes them look good. Obama one term? Ha ha you keep on dreaming. Tell me one Republican that can beat Obama in 2012, just one... | |
| | | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
1 edit | Re: Obama losing control? said by ace1974 :Obama one term? Ha ha you keep on dreaming. Tell me one Republican that can beat Obama in 2012, just one... Any republican will win, even if its a pet, just like any democrat even if it was a dog or horse would win 2008 (Obama). A new politician has no dirty laundry, no history, and can make all the promises and lies he wants, the existing president will be criticized by the mainstream media usually.
The only way Obama will win reelection is to do a false flag attack or make some kind of "Attack" on america, or pick up some kind of sword and graphically slaughter enemies with it (massive communist hearings, 9/11 anti-terrorism swat teams, etc). | |
| | | | | | | 
Katt
join:2001-08-16
Portland, OR
| Re: Obama losing control? said by patcat88 :The only way Obama will win reelection is to do a false flag attack or make some kind of "Attack" on america, or pick up some kind of sword and graphically slaughter enemies with it (massive communist hearings, 9/11 anti-terrorism swat teams, etc). And we're not even a year out from the election where people said the Republicans would do any/all of the above to make sure their guy won... | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | 
roc5955
Premium
join:2005-11-26
Rosendale, NY
·RoadRunner Cable
2 edits | Re: Obama losing control? The following:
1) Rush "Oxy" Limbaugh
2) Sean Hannity, the Manatee
3) Glen Beck (if he still has his mind)
4) Joe "You Lie" Wilson
5) Sarah "Caribou Barbie" Palin
6) "Panama" John McCain, the ancient one
7) Larry "Wide Stance" Craig
8) Jeb "Little Brother" Bush
9) Michelle "Crazy Cat Lady" Bachman
Couldn't beat Obama on a BAD day, and you want these fictitious people to beat him? Get a freakin' grip!
Fortunately, we now have a President who can walk and chew gum at the same time. He can concentrate on more than one issue at a time, like most people who have any manner of mental competence can. Unfortunately, the press, it seems can only report on one thing at a time, and feels that our leaders should only concentrate on one thing at a time.
--
"Understanding is a three-edged sword." | |
| | | | | | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: Obama losing control? said by tschmidt : Obama replaced the general in charge of Afghanistan and called for a new strategy. Afghanistan is going to be a tough problem to solve. Stay and risk further alienation of the population or leave and let the Taliban regain control of the country. Afghanistan will be a failed state of anarchy for decades like Somalia. Only genocide and "terrorism" by some group will ever create a stable central govt. | |
| | | | jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
USA
1 edit | We desperately need more than a two party system, less gov't, and some divine help.... | |
| | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: Obama losing control? said by jjeffeory :We desperately need more than a two party system, less gov't, and some divine help.... Its a republic, not a democracy, your votes mean nothing except in communist states like California with referendums. | |
| | | | | | 
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| Re: Obama losing control? said by patcat88 :Its a republic, not a democracy, your votes mean nothing except in communist states like California with referendums. Republics are democracies. They just require more democratic effort to change the law than the popular opinion of the moment. (I.e., replacing legislators; recall and impeachment; amendment of constitutions.).
The real diminishing of individual democratic power are corporations (fictional yet legal "persons," created by the stroke of a pen) treated as an "individual," with the same rights to political speech (influence).
The only connection that has to a republic is the 14th amendment to the constitution. But, the amendment process is a democratic act.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | Re: Obama losing control? So if ballot access in a "republic" requires 51% of the voting district to sign a petition, is that a democracy? (popular president-for-life systems) | |
| | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: Obama losing control? said by patcat88 :So if ballot access in a "republic" requires 51% of the voting district to sign a petition, is that a democracy? (popular president-for-life systems) Democracy is a matter of degrees, right? We could have perfect (raw) democracy where we all assemble at the local football stadium, every day, to vote on whatever anyone feels should be voted on. (Even voting on their losing propositions the day before.). We could spend all day every day doing that. It would be absolute "democracy."
Instead, we have representative democracy. Delegates raising "our" issues (which means not everyone's issues will be raised), and voting "our" interests regarding others' issues (which means not everyone's interests will be voted).
And, we have the ability to vote to replace (and recall, impeach, etc.) representatives who don't represent "us" (the majority). And, the ability to amend state and federal constitutions to increase the number of representatives (congressional districts); subject them to more frequent replacement (term limits); etc.
That's all democratic. It just has more hurdles (requiring more democratic participation) than all of us meeting in the local park every day to vote on anything anyone wants to take a vote on.
Back to your scenario:
Are you saying that if anyone who wants a measure (or candidate) added to the ballot, they should have it just because they want it? Otherwise it's not "democracy?"
If you're not saying that, then what percentage of people should be required to share the sentiment? 33%? How is that "democratic," but 51% isn't?
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
| Re: Obama losing control? Woops you failed civics.
A) We do NOT directly elect our "Commander and Chief". That is done by the OUTMODED Electoral college. Et. Al 2000 Election where the people voted for Gore but Bush got the Electoral vote. Popular vote and the will of the people IS NOT always followed.
B) Good luck impeaching and forcing a president to resign in this day and age. Bush made it his whole 8 years. Nixon was an anomaly and resigned before impeached. There has only been ONE president to ever have been fully impeached during his term in office. Andrew Johnson
C) We have elected officials we put in office. However, so long as we allow Legal Bribing, Et. Al Lobbyists to dictate the agenda, they are hardly representing the people who voted them in.
D) The will of the people is not always adhered to. Remember no taxation without representation? Well federal taxes were NEVER ratified by 3/4ths of the states. Good luck NOT paying your taxes and see what the IRS has to say about that one =). Many have tried it, and a long prison sentence is in their futures.
So long story short. We might be a representational republic / democracy in name, but the core beliefs that our founding fathers wrote down are so long gone, it isn't funn.y | |
| | | | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
3 edits | Re: Obama losing control? said by jc100 :A) We do NOT directly elect our "Commander and Chief". That is done by the OUTMODED Electoral college. Et. Al 2000 Election where the people voted for Gore but Bush got the Electoral vote. Popular vote and the will of the people IS NOT always followed. For 220 years we've had the democratic option to amend the constitution to alter (or eliminate) the Electoral College. That is democracy.
I'm undecided about the value of the EC. It's nice that more populated states can't overrule the will of people living in less populated states (facing different challenges). In the same way the Senate (two senators per state) gives greater representation (per capita) to less-populated states.
There have only been three elections when the EC count was different than the popular vote. That means it's not as much of a problem. (And, likewise, not as much of a benefit either.).
I think the "winner take all" of most states is more concerning. I don't have a big problem with delegating votes and giving states (as an entity) some weight (like we do in the Senate). But, I think the delegation should approximate the popular vote within the state.
said by jc100 :B) Good luck impeaching and forcing a president to resign in this day and age. Bush made it his whole 8 years. To "Truthers" (conspiracy theorists) that's proof of how the system is rigged. To everyone else it just proves how the problem wasn't so bad as to warrant populist reaction (impeachment).
said by jc100 :C) We have elected officials we put in office. However, so long as we allow Legal Bribing, Et. Al Lobbyists to dictate the agenda, they are hardly representing the people who voted them in. I agree. Corporations shouldn't be treated as "persons" courtesy the 14th Amendment. I don't even think we should make "corporate persons" available so easily. There should be greater requirements by society in return for this social creation. (Ex., implementation of workplace democracy.).
said by jc100 :federal taxes were NEVER ratified by 3/4ths of the states. "Truther" nonsense. Any states incorrectly attributed to ratification could have filed suit to reverse it. That didn't happen. Not even any state legislators spoke up complaining that they'd been duped.
All we have are claims decades later that Ohio wasn't properly admitted as a state. Or, that the 16th Amendment was misrepresented to Kentucky, et. al.
said by jc100 :the core beliefs that our founding fathers wrote down are so long gone, it isn't funny. Yeah. Women having the vote. African Americans considered people (not property). African Americans with the vote. Or, Senators elected by popular vote instead of appointed by state legislators (thanks to the 17th amendment).
That's anti democratic!
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
| Re: Obama losing control? quote:
For 220 years we've had the democratic option to amend the constitution to alter (or eliminate) the Electoral College. That is democracy.
Please show me WHERE in the Constitution we have a right to AMEND the Electoral College by Popular vote?... I'd REALLY like to know where that clause exists. I won't hold my breath here while you find me that passage where the PEOPLE, NOT POLITICIANS, can directly remove it. =).
quote:
I'm undecided about the value of the EC. It's nice that more populated states can't overrule the will of people living in less populated states (facing different challenges). In the same way the Senate (two senators per state) gives greater representation (per capita) to less-populated states.
I'm not too undecided. In a TRUE DEMOCRACY, people should be able to directly elect their leaders. We don't need middle men. The point of the Electoral College was to aid people in a day and age where education and other shortcomings were overwhelming. ThSuch is not the case as much anymore. We have a thing called schools and education. We need to be given the capacity to DIRECTLY elect our own leaders. Plain and simple. As for the equal representation argument, States have Senators and Representatives for a reason. They have their voice heard the same as anyone else. At the end of the day, Everyone's vote still counts, big or small.
quote:
There have only been three elections when the EC count was different than the popular vote. That means it's not as much of a problem. (And, likewise, not as much of a benefit either.).
3 times out of 44. Thats almost a 7 percent "FAIL RATIO". Of which, there have been TWO TIMES in history where it has CHANGED the outcome of the elections. That's FAR TOO MANY.
quote:
I think the "winner take all" of most states is more concerning. I don't have a big problem with delegating votes and giving states (as an entity) some weight (like we do in the Senate). But, I think the delegation should approximate the popular vote within the state.
What's more concerning is the 7 percent failure ratio, the two CHANGED elections, and the fact this is even a debated issue. See above.
quote:
B) To "Truthers" (conspiracy theorists) that's proof of how the system is rigged. To everyone else it just proves how the problem wasn't so bad as to warrant populist reaction (impeachment).
No that just proves when your ENTIRE PARTY RUNS things for 6 years, there's not a chance in hell you have much to worry about. As for the "TRUTHERS", let's face it, the Right is just as bad as the left. As much as the two sides "Fight" they both ultimately are useless. The only reason I even bother with Democrats as I don't think the whole Abortion / Church issues should even be an ARGUMENT in today's society. Keep your religion to your DAMN self and stop telling people what they can do with their bodies. Other than that, both parties are a crock of crap. It's hard to tell one from the other seeing how:
Republicans want: Small Government yet:
Voted for the BIG BROTHER PACT of the century known as the Patriot Act. Allowed Wiretapping. Allowed the NSA spying, etc. That definitely is NOT small government. How come "SMALL GOVERMENT" Republicans arent acting to reverse this atrocity? Ay?
Borrow Borrow Borrow, National Deficit Increases
Democrats - Tax Spend, Tax Spend, Tax Spend. If your idea sucks, go with the Republicans and make a few small changes and call it your own.
So yes... Why didn't Bush get impeached? Politicians today have so many outside influences (Lobbyists, Corporations, Special Interests), that unless someone is directly telling them what to do, they are TOO STUPID to think outside the box. It's neither proof or accurate to say that means our system works. No, it just proves the contrary. BAD ACTIONS continue to be overlooked because some people can't think for themselves.
quote:
C) I agree. Corporations shouldn't be treated as "persons" courtesy the 14th Amendment. I don't even think we should make "corporate persons" available so easily. There should be greater requirements by society in return for this social creation. (Ex., implementation of workplace democracy.).
Agree 100 percent.
quote:
"Truther" nonsense. Any states incorrectly attributed to ratification could have filed suit to reverse it. That didn't happen. Not even any state legislators spoke up complaining that they'd been duped.
All we have are claims decades later that Ohio wasn't properly admitted as a state. Or, that the 16th Amendment was misrepresented to Kentucky, et. al.
True. But let me correct that, DO YOU THINK federal taxes should be collected? Wasn't the whole argument of the Constitution STATE rights with the only purpose of the Federal Government to Defend and Print Money. The Federal Government is not suppose to be a "FOR PROFIT" Entity.
quote:
Yeah. Women having the vote. African Americans considered people (not property). African Americans with the vote. Or, Senators elected by popular vote instead of appointed by state legislators (thanks to the 17th amendment).
That's anti democratic!
»www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0749825.html
Please show me which Article in the Constitution SPECIFICALLY states WOMEN cannot vote. Better yet, please POINT OUT which article says BLACKS CANNOT vote. I really would like to know where the founding fathers instill racism into the constitution =). Once again, I wont hold my breath. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Kilroy
Premium,MVM
join:2002-11-21
Ann Arbor, MI
·WOW Internet and C..
| Re: Obama losing control? said by jc100 :Please show me which Article in the Constitution SPECIFICALLY states WOMEN cannot vote. Better yet, please POINT OUT which article says BLACKS CANNOT vote. I really would like to know where the founding fathers instill racism into the constitution =). 15th Ammendment
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
A little bit of both for you.
The purpose was to change Article 1, Section 2
(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.)
--
When will the people realize that with DRM they aren't purchasing anything? | |
| | | | | | | | | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
| Re: Obama losing control? The FIRST 10 amendments of the Constitution were written by the founding fathers and are known as the BILL OF RIGHTS. =). The founding fathers DID NOT write racism into the constitution. Matter of fact, the 15th amendment is an ADDENDUM to DISALLOW STATES from making their own rules.
So I hate to sound arrogant, but I must say you stand corrected. | |
| | | | | | | | | | 
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
 ·Hollis Hosting
·Verizon Online DSL
·Fairpoint Communic..
| Re: Obama losing control? said by jc100 :So I hate to sound arrogant, but I must say you stand corrected. The how do you explain the infamous 3/5 rule and why did we fight a bloody Civil War.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fift···mpromise
Article 1 Section2
quote:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Article 4 Section 2
quote:
(No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.) (This clause in parentheses is superseded by the 13th Amendment.)
Founding fathers did not allows slaves and Women to vote, both have since gained that right.
/tom | |
| | | | | | | | | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
| Re: Obama losing control? Actually,
You are wrong. Free persons DID NOT only mean slaves. It also MEANT indentured servants who were NOT FREE and bound by labor agreements. Look that one up. No where in the constitution DOES IT SAY "BLACKS". It says free. Free once again was dependent upon your status.
Indentured Servants who borrowed money and bound to monetary obligations were NOT free man.
Not all Blacks were Slaves. There were FREE BLCKS.
So your ambiguous misinterpretation should not be used to misconstrue the truth.
Second THE FOUNDING FATHERS only made the Bill of rights. The first TEN AMENDMENT. I stated that OVER AND OVER. The 13th Amendment is NOT THE BILL OF RIGHTS!!!!!! What people added Later is done on their own merit. The founding fathers DID NOT EXCLUSIVELY include racism into the constitution!!
Last, SHOW ME where it says WOMEN CANNOT VOTE =). | |
| | | | | | | | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
| P.S. I'm sure Give me Liberty or Give me death didn't mean Spy on Me, Take away my Constitutional Rights, and let the government have immunity for wrong doing. Another constitutional amendment which says
A) Due Process
B) Right to Redresss
So on and so forth. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: Obama losing control? said by jc100 :P.S. I'm sure Give me Liberty or Give me death didn't mean Spy on Me, Take away my Constitutional Rights, ... Just to clarify, Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty or Give me death" speech was in 1775. There was no constitution until 14 years later.
In the meantime, the founding generation decided "liberty" (in the form of the relatively libertarian Articles of Confederation of 1781, and the earlier Articles of Association of 1774) wasn't so hot. They ditched it in favor of the vastly more powerful federal/constitutional government of 1789. The government which required a Bill of Rights (with undefined terms like "reasonable" search and seizure.).
So, the binary choice wasn't quite as binary as it appeared to be in 1775.
Mark | |
| | | lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | Are you saying the democrats in control of the House and Senate for the last two years of Bush rubber stamped everything he wanted?
Obama lied and granny died | |
| | | | jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10
Youngstown, OH
| said by footballdude :The President is having trouble getting his health care bill passed and now senators are openly opposing his position on this. Is he losing control of his party this soon? Theres nothing saying your party or anyone HAS to agree with the president. I voted for him and I certainly don't agree with all of Obama's ideas.
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| said by footballdude :The President is having trouble getting his health care bill passed and now senators are openly opposing his position on this. Is he losing control of his party this soon? He never had any control over his party, time for Obama to have CIA dig up some dirt against the party bosses, then blackmail the legislators with not being on the ballot next election, if they squawk, nobody will believe them, and Obama will anonymously leak that they snort cocaine while ****ing little boys and have the AG go after them, or more simple good old bribe accepting charges. You need to think like Bush. | |
| | | | | 
El Quintron
Could you spare a consulting gig?
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON |  Good on the Senator
| |
| expert007
join:2006-01-10
Buffalo, NY | Makes sense to me I disagree with the immunity, but I've said along that it should be decided in the courts. Regardless of whether the initial wiretapping was legal, justified or not, it should be proactively addressed in a court of law. | |
| |
See 10 replies to this post | |
| |
See 68 replies to this post | |
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
|  These Senators just trying to reward trial lawyer supporters
»www.opensecrets.org/politicians/···cle=2010
quote:
Sen Dodd
Lawyers/Law Firms
Industry Total $1,673,971
Indivs $1,552,546
PACs $121,425
»www.opensecrets.org/politicians/···cle=2010
quote:
Sen Feingold
Lawyers/Law Firms
Industry $395,631
Total Indivs $384,131
PACs $11,500
»www.opensecrets.org/politicians/···cle=2010
quote:
Sen Leahy
Lawyers/Law Firms
Industry $444,365
Total Indivs $360,186
PACs $84,179
»www.opensecrets.org/politicians/···cle=2010
quote:
Sen Merkley
Lawyers/Law Firms
Industry $444,913
Total Indivs $441,413
PACs $3,500
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
| |
| |
See 10 replies to this post | |
CrazyFingers
join:2003-10-01
Columbia, MO
| Eh? ...a group of senator's are trying to strip the telco's of this...
The "senator's" what?
The "telco's" what?
I'm dying to know what these two entities possessed and how this impacts this story. I guess we could do Mad-Libs:
"...a group of senator's wombats are trying to strip the telco's peanut butter of this protection,"
--
Burrow owl...burrow owl... | |
| | jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
USA
1 edit | Re: Eh? Well, we could spend all day correcting people's silly grammar errors. We wouldn't get anything done that way. Wait, we don't get anything done anyway....
Be sure to correct all of the to, too, two & there, their, they're errors. There are many of those errors there, too... | |
| | | | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Easy for them to say "If the programs were actually legal, then let a court say that," notes Masnick. "If the programs were illegal, then there is no good reason to have made the telcos immune."
That's really easy for someone to say who does not have to actually go to court.
Class action lawsuits are simply a way to inflict pain on the defendant. They have very little to do with "justice". The allegedly harmed parties get little.
It's really important to see "telco immunity", and "network neutrality", for what they really are:
A way to use the government (whether the judicial or executive branches) to disadvantage the telcos and advantage the "dot com"s of the world.
All of the posturing and preaching is just that... a way to spin public opinion. | |
| moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| And no one really here gets it.... This whole thing started in a much different way than many people think.
The CIA was tapping foreign calls like they always do when they found some of these calls were going back to the USA. This is where it got tricky. While they were listening in on overseas phones, some of the calls either went to or originated in the USA. Technically, it is not illegal to listen in as long as the target is OUTSIDE the country.
Now, with the numbers receiving and making calls from the USA to these foreign phones, they obviously want to listen in. Now, it becomes a matter of using evidence from the CIA (who is not allowed any law enforcement powers in this country) to tap into a domestic line (which becomes the jurisdiction of the FBI.) | |
| | 
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | Re: And no one really here gets it.... it's pretty straight forward: AT&T and Verizon violated the law by allowing all calls/internet through their lines to be "tapped" and logged. illegal is illegal. time to bring these corporate ass holes to justice. | |
| | | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | Re: And no one really here gets it.... Since when have Senators and Congress had prosecutorial powers. The phone companies have already been granted immunity and the Justice Department declines to prosecute. Case closed. | |
| | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: And no one really here gets it.... said by Sammer :Since when have Senators and Congress had prosecutorial powers. Congress could have held hearings (ala Iran/Contra), referred individuals for prosecution, and impeached the President for complicity (non-prosecution), etc.
They didn't because (as the congressional history of surveillance laws indicates), they know the Executive Branch has an inherent power to surveil. The Legislative branch merely errects a framework for known surveillance requirements to operate in an orderly fashion. But, that framework doesn't limit the Executive's power (when new, unforeseen requirements arise).
That's why Congress amended FISA (expanding it, and loosing language regarding telcos in 18 U.S.C. 2702(a)(3) & (c)) as a response to the Executive's exigent operations. They did that instead of Iran/Contra-style hearings because they knew the Executive had acted according to its powers.
People who say telcos broke the law otherwise they wouldn't need so-called immunity remind me of the people who say you shouldn't have any trouble with any level of surveillance "unless you have something to hide." Both are faulty reasoning.
Immunity simply utilized the existing law (2511) but fasttracked the judicial determination of whether the Executive certified the surveillance. We know the Executive did because they were almost antagonistic about how they didn't need to use FISA.
The problem was that the civil trial became political theater for every anti-Bush activist who couldn't get Congressional hearings and proper prosecution. That wasn't fair to telcos.
I was far from a Bush surpporter. I have no feelings about telcos. It's just a matter of justice versus perversion (for political purposes).
Mark | |
| | 
Murdoc
join:2009-02-08
Manitowoc, WI | Sounds good to me Time to get the tables turned on these corporate scum. | |
| | | |
|
|
·
from:
pity the poor, put-upon 'postrophe, please