FISA with Telecom Immunity Passed

[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.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by That Guy

powell is a better man than rumsfeld and cheney combined. too bad he got played in the whole deal :/. rumsfeld's "plan as you go without intel" version of waging a war is just about the stupidest thing i've ever seen.

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.

[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.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

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.

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[saden1]

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

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by saden1

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

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.