Re: FISA with Telecom Immunity Passed
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;456731]The litigation essentially targets companies who allegedly conspired with the government to violate certain citizens' constitutional right to privacy. If the spying was not illegal/unconstitutional in the first instance, why would the administration deem it necessary to protect those who helped carry out the spying?[/quote]
They would have the cost of defending any and all law suits brought up against them. If one jurry would side against companies it would just be one mass of law suits and we would then have to listen to all those Lawyer comercials they run at night. Just avoiding the Lawyer Comercials is reason enough.

Re: FISA with Telecom Immunity Passed
 

[quote=FRPLG;456730]Ding ding we have a winner. I think less of Rumsfeld than almost any person on the face of this earth. Bush has done a bad job but with pretty good intentions. Cheney's methods were crap but again I think he really had "good" intentions. But that jackass Rumsfeld perpetrated his deeds in the name of his ego and vanity. I am convinced we'd all have a much better view of Bush and his administration had Powell been running the deal rather than Rumsfeld. Hell even Tenet was better prepared to wage this war.[/quote]
this post makes me chuckle. who appointed Donald Rumsfeld? in politics, its all about choices, and making sure you make the right ones. its not like Rumsfeld had changed his philosophies over the years. and im sure the decisions that were made were discussed, ad nauseum, in the war room( with the president present) and if the president wasn't involved in those decisions, its his fault for giving Rumsfeld free reign, to making some of the most important decisions of the world. im not ready to give president Bush a free pass on the Iraq mess

Re: FISA with Telecom Immunity Passed
 

[QUOTE=firstdown;456748]They would have the cost of defending any and all law suits brought up against them. If one jurry would side against companies it would just be one mass of law suits and we would then have to listen to all those Lawyer comercials they run at night. Just avoiding the Lawyer Comercials is reason enough.[/QUOTE]

Granted, the telecom companies would have to defend the suits. But, frankly, the cost to defend the suits would not cripple those giants.

Also, I don't think the litigation would work out the way you think it would. For example, if there were no legitimate legal grounds for the suits, the courts could dismiss the matter as a matter of law. If a case is dismissed as a matter of law, a jury never hears it.

More importantly, if a constitutional right was infringed, should it not be discovered and people punished accordingly? If a constitutional right was not infringed, wouldn't it be a good thing to make it known that the spying program was above board? I think it's pretty sad when people don't want to know, or simply don't care, whether a government program runs afoul of the constitution.

Re: FISA with Telecom Immunity Passed
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;456757]Granted, the telecom companies would have to defend the suits. But, frankly, the cost to defend the suits would not cripple those giants.

Also, I don't think the litigation would work out the way you think it would. For example, if there were no legitimate legal grounds for the suits, the courts could dismiss the matter as a matter of law. If a case is dismissed as a matter of law, a jury never hears it.

More importantly, if a constitutional right was infringed, should it not be discovered and people punished accordingly? If a constitutional right was not infringed, wouldn't it be a good thing to make it known that the spying program was above board? I think it's pretty sad when people don't want to know, or simply don't care, whether a government program runs afoul of the constitution.[/quote]Why should the telecoms be liable? Whatever they did was at the request/demand of the Federal government. If there's a constitutional issue it should be addressed one way or another, but it should be addressed with the Fed not a telecom.

The telecoms are corporations, at the end of the day all they care about is $$$. On their own, they are not taping any phones or intercepting communications (unless it's on a rival telecom for competitive info).

IMO here's the scenario the telecoms were making sure they avoid: A group of lawyers representing terrorist/anti-American interests (ACLU/CAIR) comes up with someone who has been "damaged" by the telecoms' actions of providing information to the Federal government (I would imagine any one of several terrorists in Federal custody would fit the bill). They create a lawsuit suing the telecoms for monetary damages and find a sympathetic district court, under a sympathetic appellate court (9th Circuit in CA). The lawsuit wins and is upheld on appeal. I don't think this is outside of the realm of possibility and the legal arms of the telecoms must not think it is either.

If one of these lawsuits was successful it would force the telecoms further restrict government to access their information for investigations involving national security. Also the costs of the judgements would be several million (passed to the American people in the form of higher rates).

Re: FISA with Telecom Immunity Passed
 

[QUOTE=Slingin Sammy 33;456772]Why should the telecoms be liable? Whatever they did was at the request/demand of the Federal government. If there's a constitutional issue it should be addressed one way or another, but it should be addressed with the Fed not a telecom.[/QUOTE]

The telecoms were asked to provide assistance, they were not forced to do so. Also, the telecoms owe certain duties to their clientele (e.g., not to violate their constitutional rights or to release information about them in violation of their own privacy policies). If their conduct was illegal, why shouldn't they be held responsible?

[QUOTE=Slingin Sammy 33;456772]IMO here's the scenario the telecoms were making sure they avoid: A group of lawyers representing terrorist/anti-American interests (ACLU/CAIR) comes up with someone who has been "damaged" by the telecoms' actions of providing information to the Federal government (I would imagine any one of several terrorists in Federal custody would fit the bill). They create a lawsuit suing the telecoms for monetary damages and find a sympathetic district court, under a sympathetic appellate court (9th Circuit in CA). The lawsuit wins and is upheld on appeal. I don't think this is outside of the realm of possibility and the legal arms of the telecoms must not think it is either.[/QUOTE]

Labeling the ACLU an organization which represents terrorist/anti-american interests is a little silly. As a general rule, the ACLU fights the government tooth and nail over its powers. I'm frankly suprised to hear so many conservatives (i.e., supporters of small government) bash them at every turn.
As for the quotes around damages, I think violations of constitutional rights rises to the level of damages (assuming the spying program is unconstitutional).

[QUOTE=Slingin Sammy 33;456772]If one of these lawsuits was successful it would force the telecoms further restrict government to access their information for investigations involving national security. Also the costs of the judgements would be several million (passed to the American people in the form of higher rates).[/QUOTE]

If one of the lawsuits was successful, it would likely signal that the spying program was illegal or unconstitutional. Do you think that companies should not be held liable for engaging in illegal conduct?

Honestly, I think it is not very "American" to dismiss breaches of the constitution or the law (again, assuming the spying program is unconstitutional or illegal). You don't get to pick and choose when the constitution or the law is important and must be upheld.

Re: FISA with Telecom Immunity Passed
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;456772]Why should the telecoms be liable? Whatever they did was at the request/demand of the Federal government. If there's a constitutional issue it should be addressed one way or another, but it should be addressed with the Fed not a telecom.

The telecoms are corporations, at the end of the day all they care about is $$$. On their own, they are not taping any phones or intercepting communications (unless it's on a rival telecom for competitive info).

[/quote]


Because the contract I signed with them didn't stipulate that I wave my right to privacy and that I grant the right to the government to spy on me 24/7? They broke the contract I signed with them.

I know that my contract says they may provide law enforcement access to my records if court ordered but it said nothing about them letting the NSA setup their own server rooms inside their complex. If I was informed that the NSA has setup shop at AT&T I would have terminated my contract. I wasn't informed and therefor I wasn't given the opportunity to decide for myself whether what AT&T was doing was acceptable to me. What happened to my right to choose?

Re: FISA with Telecom Immunity Passed
 

[quote=saden1;456780]Because the contract I signed with them didn't stipulate that I wave my right to privacy and that I grant the right to the government to spy on me 24/7? They broke the contract I signed with them.

I know that my contract says they may provide law enforcement access to my records if court ordered but it said nothing about them letting the NSA setup their own server rooms inside their complex. If I was informed that the NSA has setup shop at AT&T I would have terminated my contract. I wasn't informed and therefor I wasn't given the opportunity to decide for myself whether what AT&T was doing was acceptable to me. What happened to my right to choose?[/quote]

I suppose an argument could be made that "[URL="http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=086573287740+4+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve"]the telecommunications resources of the Nation will be available for government use during crises and emergencies, wartime and non-wartime, and to satisfy the needs of the public welfare and safety.[/URL]" IF this holds water, you're contract with Qwest or AT&T or whoever isn't really considered at that point.

Re: FISA with Telecom Immunity Passed
 

At some point either before the election or right after it, someone from the intelligence community is going to sit down with BHO and show him all the information that has been harvested from this program and he will almost certainly say "stay the course". That's what they all say. The alternative is a succesful terror attack that has everybody saying, "Maybe we should have stayed the course". And BHO knows that if he does end this program and an attack occurrs, all the civil liberties types will disappear on him. This is an issue that will not survive the departure of Bush. Liberals aren't really opossed to this sort of thing, but it has been useful in firing up the base. When Obama does the same thing, it will seem so much more reasonable to them. The same is true for the interrogation policy, presidential signing statements and anything else Bush has done to expand executive power. BHO will make them his own, I predict.

Re: FISA with Telecom Immunity Passed
 

There's nothing to predict, Obama has already voted in favor of the FISA bill.

Re: FISA with Telecom Immunity Passed
 

[quote=saden1;456805]There's nothing to predict, Obama has already voted in favor of the FISA bill.[/quote]


Maybe he's already gotten his briefing. One of the great things our government does, these pre-election briefings. Kennedy actually ambushed Nixon in 1960 at one of the debates with Cuba intel that was suppossed to be off limits for the campaign. The reality is that history indicates that Democrats adore expansive executive power, and they have the advantage of a press corps that understands that they would never misuse it. Republican abuses are merely Democratic assertiveness or deciseveness or whatever other positive word fits the best on the cover of the magazine.

Re: FISA with Telecom Immunity Passed
 

[QUOTE=70Chip;456802]The alternative is a succesful terror attack that has everybody saying, "Maybe we should have stayed the course".[/QUOTE]

I think it's a stretch to say that this domestic spying program is the one thing protecting us from another attack.

Also, isn't this sort of program the kind of thing that conservatives traditionally oppose and is contrary to some of their core principles? It seems more like something FDR would do than Reagan.

Re: FISA with Telecom Immunity Passed
 

[QUOTE=dmek25;456750]this post makes me chuckle. who appointed Donald Rumsfeld? in politics, its all about choices, and making sure you make the right ones. its not like Rumsfeld had changed his philosophies over the years. and im sure the decisions that were made were discussed, ad nauseum, in the war room( with the president present) and if the president wasn't involved in those decisions, its his fault for giving Rumsfeld free reign, to making some of the most important decisions of the world. im not ready to give president Bush a free pass on the Iraq mess[/QUOTE]

No free passes I agree but I can't be reasonable and think that the catalyst behind so much of the crap was Rumsfeld? This is what baffles me about politics. I have no allegiance to Bush more than Rumsfeld. I look at the two and ask myself "Which of these two guys is most directly responsible for the mess in Iraq?" Well Bush got us in but Rumsfeld blew it. Crap rolls up hill for sure and Bush certainly has his failings but in the case of the execution of our "plan" in Iraq you have look at Rumsfeld and say he was the causation. I don't understand why everything has to be laid right at Bush's feet and the mere mention that others had larger roles in policy is giving him a "free pass". I am simply talking about what actually happened. And what actually happened was that our President relied on Rumsfeld to do a job that he did poorly at best. Bush's screw up was Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld's screw up was our sh*t plan for actually doing our job once we rolled over Iraq's joke of an army.

Re: FISA with Telecom Immunity Passed
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;456774]The telecoms were asked to provide assistance, they were not forced to do so. Also, the telecoms owe certain duties to their clientele (e.g., not to violate their constitutional rights or to release information about them in violation of their own privacy policies). If their conduct was illegal, why shouldn't they be held responsible?[/quote]
The telecoms do need to follow the terms of service for their customers. I haven't read mine in detail, but I'm sure there is a clause that states they will cooperate with law enforcement investigations and are not liable for information used in the course of an investigation. There is no way any telecom volunteered info to the Fed. Any info was requested/demanded and I'm sure the telecoms have plenty of documentation to back up any requests for info.

[quote]Labeling the ACLU an organization which represents terrorist/anti-american interests is a little silly.[/quote]Really? They already have.

[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/03/AR2008040304133_pf.html"]ACLU, Lawyers Group Aim to Defend High-Value Detainees[/URL]

[URL="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmU1ZDY2OTVjYTgyOGJkZTVmNTM3ZDcxNjk2NWQzYTg"]The Editors on Surveillance & Supreme Court on National Review Online[/URL]=

[quote]If one of the lawsuits was successful, it would likely signal that the spying program was illegal or unconstitutional. Do you think that companies should not be held liable for engaging in illegal conduct? [/quote]Not if they are cooperating with a request/demand from the Federal government. I agree with looking into the constitutionality of the program, I just believe the target should be the Attorney General, NSA or whatever government agency requested/demanded this info.

I also believe the ACLU & CAIR folks are pretty smart and will be looking for a court (such as in Detroit) with a judge either sympathetic to them or anti-Bush to work this through. Because a lawsuit in this type of court is successful, doesn't make the program unconstitutional.

If this program is at such a level of being unconstitutional, I would think the Senate Intel Committee (controlled by Democrats) would be making a much bigger issue of this than just leaking some info to the NY Times. I would also think the bill would've passed by a much closer margin than 69-20.

Re: FISA with Telecom Immunity Passed
 

[QUOTE=Slingin Sammy 33;456271]Do you believe the threat from fundamental Islamists is perceived and not real? They have openly declared war on the United States and their objective is to have one world under Sharia law. Are they an immediate threat to succeed? No. However the threat they pose is very real.

I do agree with you on protecting our liberties, but allowing the government to actively pursue our enemies through surveillance IMO does not infringe on our liberties, as long as there is ultimate oversight by the legislative and judicial branch, which there is.[/QUOTE]

I would say that terrorists present many real threats, but none which justify the removal of any liberties in America.

Basically, the [I]real[/I] threats that terrorists pose are insignificant. The major threats they "pose", are only perceived (IMO).

As for global Sharia law, that will NEVER happen. That is a perceived threat, and it will never become a real threat (IMO). However, that is the kind of "threat" that is used to justify these kinds of restrictions on liberties.

Re: FISA with Telecom Immunity Passed
 

Justice:
[LIST=1][*]The quality of being just; fairness.[*][LIST=1][*] The principle of moral rightness; equity.[*] Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.[/LIST] [*][LIST=1][*] The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.[*][I]Law.[/I] The administration and procedure of law.[/LIST] [*] Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason[/LIST]

Re: FISA with Telecom Immunity Passed
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;456819]I think it's a stretch to say that this domestic spying program is the one thing protecting us from another attack.

Also, isn't this sort of program the kind of thing that conservatives traditionally oppose and is contrary to some of their core principles? It seems more like something FDR would do than Reagan.[/quote]

I didn't say it was the only thing. I was pointing out the dilema a President Obama will face. Bush has had no terror attacks for many years now. Any attacks that occur on Obama's watch will cause him headaches because his position has been that Bush has gone too far.