http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101202485.html?hpid=topnews The government approached Qwest six months BEFORE Sept. 11, 2001 about participating in a NSA "warrantless surveillance program". Qwest didn't because they thought it was illegal. The point is that telecom immunity passes then we won't have legal recourse to find out the extent to which the government and telecom companies broke the law. We'll never know when it started, before or after 9/11. We'll never know who in the government decided to illegally circumvent the courts. And why? They could have tried and change the laws through Congress, especially after 9/11. Which companies broke the law and to what extent? What private information did the government illegally acquire? Will they be able to keep it and use it against people in the future? How did the companies that broke the law profit from it? How were the companies that followed the law financially punished? You have to wonder how far into the government this might go? They aren't just saving the telecoms from lawsuits, they are potentially saving themselves. It reeks of corruption.
While I understand the sentiment, this is why I wrote about the mythology of 'wiretapping' Large scale data trawling was already occurring and this was almost certainly including US based comms since way before 911. The issue with going to Court for a warrant is that the approach is from a bygone era, when you suspect a guy so you want to tap a phone. With this - often "the guy" is unknown - instead you are trawling EVERYONE. No way is a Court giving permission for that!
Isn't there a difference in black ops and things we (wink-wink) let the NSA & CIA do (like using England as a data gathering place, Eastern European torture prisons) and an Administration basically ordering private companies to "lend us their ears"? Now if I was a member of a rogue administration, I might want to listen in on the dealings of a certain opposition party to gain whatever advantage I might find useful. All under the pretense of "protectin' 'Mericans" of course
I don't think a corporation can go to jail, so how could Bush pardon them? Wouldn't these be civil suits? I don't think the president has any authority over that.
Some ppl. think that Bushco may have spied on the GITMO defendants' lawyers. Might explain why they were eager to avoid the FISA judges. Sh!t like that is par for the course in the anti-law/lawyers Bushland, but no judge would let that fly.
Conyers to Bush: I’m Staying Here To Work On FISA And what Conyers mentions in the video is really something: Cutting off access to the FBI for not paying the bills on time....HOw "patriotic" can these companies get? Why should these companies ought to get immunity is beyond me....
Not all Telecoms participated. Qwest for example took the position that the activity was illegal. Those that participated received payment (and probably favorable treatment) from the government. They received a market bump for illegal activity, but now W does not want the market to punish them for their actions, they should be retro-actively immune, largely because he was involved. The whole notion is ridiculous.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080221/ap_on_go_pr_wh/terrorist_surveillance Ya know how every time the GOP wants to start some godawful attack on civil rights here and their asshat fanboys always chime in with "you have nothing to worry about if you've done nothing wrong"? Well, if Bush and the telecoms have done nothing wrong, why is Bush so worried?
USSC denied ACLU's lawsuit. Only way now to see what went on is to allow laswuits by individuals against the telecoms.
And here why we need these protections: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080223/ap_on_hi_te/snooping_workers Dozens of federal agencies, state agencies, and private companies with hundreds upon hundreds of cases of snooping. When information like this is collected, we simply can not trust that the holders will treat it correctly - there has to be as much checking and systematic protections as possible.
And the fear-mongering continues. Sean Conway, chief of staff for CO Repub. Wayne Allard: "And the House has just simply said, we're not going to accept this, because we want to have, you know, terrorists be able to sue phone companies if they're listening to our conversations. It's insane." Terra'rists suing telecoms? Interesting lie. Haven't heard that one yet. Conway also said this: "I don't know about you, but if I'm a Democrat out there, you'd best, better hope that something does not happen in this country while this bill lapses." Riiiiight. The bill Bush vowed to veto b/c it didn't protect the telecoms so now we can't "protect 'Mericans."
Not really. I think the government did a despicable thing and holding an industry responsible for the state's overreach is the ultimate kick in the teeth. It's time to move on but while we do we have to make sure that the state never can overreach like that again.
I find it perfectly logical. Businesses were held hostage by the state and individuals may have lost privacy. Both of their rights were violated and the culprit is the federal government. But we aren't going to agree so let's end this here unless you are into me pontificating for the next 10 pages. Your choice.
So lets go ahead and make sure that now that they know their actions were legally questionable that we give them a 'Land on Go, Collect $200' card? The ****ing bill gives them immunity for not just their past actions, but their future actions. By accepting the proposed immunity you are saying one of two things, (1) I don't believe in liberty and/or (2) I don't understand what the bill grants. We're on a discussion board. I'm here knowing full well that people will pontificate. Frankly, I'd like to read your justification.
The immunity for the telcos is window dressing. The desired effect for Bush is that it would prevent the telcos from testifying in open court about how the DOJ, under the direction of the WH, got the telcos to play along in the first place. That's why Bush has pushed so hard on this - do you really think he gives a rat's ass otherwise?
I understand what the bill grants and I believe in liberty. I believe in the liberty for companies to not be on the hook when the government forces companies to do objectionable things. The telecoms are victims as well. As for the individual having their rights violated, it's a wash. I don't think that information collected can legally be used against an individual. But correct me if I'm wrong. It hasn't changed. Hence Claymore's reaction.
Huh? The entire point of the surveillance is supposedly to track down individuals and terrorist cells.