FISA with Telecom Immunity Passed

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Miller101

Hey Firstdown.........just for the record I was joking around too.

And I see your point in your post, but..........it doesn't bother you? This immunity thing? They should have passed this law first! They shouldn't have just kept Congress in the dark and broken the law. And kept on breaking the law for 7 years or so. That is bullcrud! And now, noone is going to have too answer for it.......EVEN MORE BULLCRUD!

They had congressional hearing about this and even the Judge who testified said that the president did not break any laws. Now if you can show the evidence he broke the law then you have done more than they could do and I'm sure the Dems looked at this from all angles. Now if you feel it is breaking your rights then that is another thing but against the law it wasn't. What they just did here was to put into law the procedure the president has to follow so it is clear to all what powers he does or does not have.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by firstdown

They had congressional hearing about this and even the Judge who testified said that the president did not break any laws. Now if you can show the evidence he broke the law then you have done more than they could do and I'm sure the Dems looked at this from all angles. Now if you feel it is breaking your rights then that is another thing but against the law it wasn't. What they just did here was to put into law the procedure the president has to follow so it is clear to all what powers he does or does not have.

It is not 100% clear whether the President's spying program violated the law. I have seen nothing that conclusively answers that question one way or the other. That shouldn't be terribly surprising - seeing how the precise scope of the program has been kept under lock and key. So, unless someone here is privy to "super secret" information on the program and is legal academic, I don't think anyone on this board is qualified to say whether the President violated the law in creating the program. Nevertheless, non-lawyer conservatives usually say he didn't break the law and non-lawyer liberals usually say he did and should be jailed ... all without knowing what the program entails or what law(s) it implicates.

EDIT - I should mention that I personally think some information has come out which suggests that certain laws may have been violated. But, I don't know whether those reports are accurate and I haven't fully looked into the matter.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

It is not 100% clear whether the President's spying program violated the law. I have seen nothing that conclusively answers that question one way or the other. That shouldn't be terribly surprising - seeing how the precise scope of the program has been kept under lock and key. So, unless someone here is privy to "super secret" information on the program and is legal academic, I don't think anyone on this board is qualified to say whether the President violated the law in creating the program. Nevertheless, non-lawyer conservatives usually say he didn't break the law and non-lawyer liberals usually say he did and should be jailed ... all without knowing what the program entails or what law(s) it implicates.

EDIT - I should mention that I personally think some information has come out which suggests that certain laws may have been violated. But, I don't know whether those reports are accurate and I haven't fully looked into the matter.

If laws were not violated why is telecom immunity needed?

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

If laws were not violated why is telecom immunity needed?

Civil litigation against the telecoms.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Civil litigation against the telecoms.

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?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

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?

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.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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.

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.