Again, it's not about immunity, it's about disclosure. Do you honestly believe the telcos didn't get something in writing from Gonzalez before this all went down? They're covered (or at least they think they are), which is why they don't particularly care about this bill. If they have to disclose the fact that the DOJ, acting on direction of the WH, provided de-facto immunity so Bush could go data mining, all hell breaks loose.
Well I know the answer to the second question. But I think you are copping out on the first. Can you be more specific?
The Telecoms knew what they were doing was illegal. Why? Because until this fucking idiot came into office, a warrant for that type of shit was always needed. And now, Voilá, because Chimpy and The Flying Monkeys say it's OK, they comply like sheep? Bullshit. They have enough lawyers coming out the ass to tell them that what they were doing, and what the government was asking, was illegal. And because they got caught, they want a retrospective immunity? Oh, and the thought that business would not want to work with government again unless this immunity went down? Well, what other type of contrarian bullshit would you expect? The fact that the government has already got them to break the law will already make business wary. The rule of law is either the rule of law or it's not. If it's applied on an arbitrary basis, protecting some friends and persecuting some enemies, then it's become little more than that of a despotic king.
Perhaps you can educate the class on how exactly they can switch to Qwest if they happen to not live in the Rocky Mountain states or the Northwest.
After watching how things have gone down would you now trust AG's word if that's all you had? I sure wouldn't Doubtful. There's 10 months left in this presidency. After that, nobody is going after Bush.
I agree with most of what you write, but I have to mention that at the time it was questionable as to whether the actions that were being taken were illegal. Remember that the laws changed with title 2 of the PATRIOT act. Only after SCOTUS clarification were all of the ducks put in a row. But your best point is that when the government forces companies (and regular citizens for that matter) to do unethical things then the order of our society breaks down.
That's like saying my telephone repair man is immune from prosecution if he installs my phone lines correctly (and AT&T uses them to illegally spy on me). If we use your line of thinking, the corporate entity that is not immune from prosecution are the pharmaceutical companies. Gee, I don't seem to recall any of them being sued recently for any reasons.
drugs and medical devices are covered under different laws. Recently the supreme court ruled that medical device makers are immune from lawsuits if they acted responsibly and the FDA approved the device. Drugs are under a different law - and I think the SC split 4-4 on that, and a lower court ruling allowing lawsuits stands. But these 2 cases are covered under specific (but different) laws
Even if it meant a night in the drunk tank and a permanent file at FBI headquarters, I think I would have felt it to be my patriotic duty to chime in a with a "Go **** yourself" if I was present during this speech.
Then let's try this one. Under certain conditions you can kill a man for the government and be completely in the clear. I mean are you gonna send a soldier to Iraq to kill AQIA and the prosecute them afterwards for doing what the state told them to? I know it's a stretch but hopefully you can see where I'm coming from
It is a massive stretch. If you want to maintain consistency in your examples, then this is much closer: Bush sends a hitman to assassinate a world leader with whom Bush doesn't agree with or doesn't like. It was authorized by the US Government, but it is murder and if the guy were to be captured (in pretty much any country), he could be prosecuted.
Under the proper circumstances I would be totally cool with congress giving a the telecoms immunity too. Those circumstances, however, are not the ones we currently have.
That soldier doesn't pay millions every year to lawyers who can tell him that what he's doing is, in fact, against the law. This is a much sharper analogy.
Jack Bauer should be in jail for overuse of the phrases "set up a perimeter" and "damn it I don't have time for this"
well, perhaps I missed a bit of conversation, but if you said drug companies can't be sued, then you are half right. Medical device companies can't be sued for actions taken in good faith. Drug companies can be - as per current law and court decisions. I'm no expert on law, but I'd imagine that because there is no specific law saying telecoms can't be sued (yet, pending some spineless cave-in to fascists who believe the government should spy on anyone in violation of FISA), they can be
I was referring to the fact that a pharmaceutical company would be the party sued, not the doctor, and was being sarcastic when I said that no pharmaceutical company has been sued for any reason lately.
If Bush did that - he might need to pen his own name on that immunity document As far as I am aware neither the president nor any other member of the executive can 'authorize' murder. Presumably congress could legalise some actions like this in advance or give immunity. The issues I have with all of this go back to SOP & conflict with international law and Constitution. 1. The power of congress to make laws is not unlimited 2. Exec cannot be awarded an unfettered discretion by congress 3. At international law it's been clear since Nuremburg that a higher level of universal principles apply to country made laws. 4. At some point the judiciary will strike down laws which conflict with Constitution 5. At some point the judiciary will strike down laws which have judicial effect. In the end - at least in theory - neither the govt nor congress can authorise wholesale spying on the US public. For instance I doubt that Congress could make a law allowing the feds to come over to my house to check if I was breaking the law. (i.e. fishing). They cannot come over to my house and open all my mail to see what I am up to. So I find it doubtful that a computer can lawfully read my email to flag it up for 'keywords' Presumably if they have no power to do these things - then there is no power to give immunity for it anyway? Maybe one for yoss? All this depends on the balls of the SC of course. IMO Bush has shot himself in the foot with some of this, because of course behind the scenes a lot of "fishing' has always gone on - and everyone has been cool with it. Here's an example. When the police do a big bust - their motto is arrest everyone you possibly can - do a quick trawl to work out who the baddies are, then release everyone else. You see it every time on these so called terror raids in the UK - 25 people arrested - 5 people charged. The Courts and defence lawyers know the police do this. Strictly it is not allowed - they need to have reasonable grounds for arrest. But no one moans because it helps the police do their jobs. Even News of the bloody World gets access to your mobile phone and credit card records if they are doing a story!