FISA with Telecom Immunity Passed

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

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.

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).

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

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 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?

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

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.

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).

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

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).

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.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

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?

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.

Labeling the ACLU an organization which represents terrorist/anti-american interests is a little silly.

Really? They already have.

ACLU, Lawyers Group Aim to Defend High-Value Detainees

The Editors on Surveillance & Supreme Court on National Review Online=

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?

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.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

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).

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?

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by saden1

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?

I suppose an argument could be made that "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." IF this holds water, you're contract with Qwest or AT&T or whoever isn't really considered at that point.

[70Chip]

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.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

The alternative is a succesful terror attack that has everybody saying, "Maybe we should have stayed the course".

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.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

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.

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.