just curious...
Where is the RM FISA outrage?
- Thread starter RenegadeRick
- Start date
right here.
if i knew what that was.
if i knew what that was.
Nothing will change until the veto power changes.
FISA- filling in sperm anally
fisting individually for sodomite advancement
Fédération Internationale des Sociétés d'Aviron
You like pulling on large shafts with 7 other guys wearing spandex in close proximity, sliding your asses in unity at the commands of the cox don't you?
Etes vous pres?
par-tay!!
Last edited:
foreign intelligence surveillance act
I think so too
Right here.
However, Andrew Sullivan has a surprising take: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/07/why-i-can-live.html
However, Andrew Sullivan has a surprising take: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/07/why-i-can-live.html
good for him. but who's to say he takes this position b/c it offers him the best access to hussein's yams.
"...horrified by bush"
indeed.
All my indicators are pointing to fanboy rationalization. I just like that there is a dissenting voice against what seems to be pretty universal conservative and liberal public (but not legislative) outcry against this.
I don't see this is Obama's pandering to moderates and conservatives, because even conservative are disgusted by the letter of the law.
Why the massive disconnect between legislators and constituents. What are we missing that they get?
On what, specifically?
Immunity for phone companies? They should have it, as they acted as agents of the government...the .gov should assume their role in any lawsuits as they grant qualified immunity to all government agents.
Warrantless surveillance? Outside of the country, not on US persons--have at it. [ed--obviously--an extraterritorial warrant doesn't even exist...] There's a possible sticky issue with signals routed through the US, based on legal precedent relating to federal jurisdiction (where the routing of a signal across a border puts the signal within the jurisdictions crossed, including the fed if it crosses state lines), but I think holding to that re: international calling misses the point re: intelligence gathering. Plus, as non-US persons outside of US jurisdiction, the targets have no legal standing to object.
Warrantless surveillance within the country worries me; the old FISA rules were just right, IMHO. Warrantless for a limited period in exigent circumstances, with the need to secure a warrant to continue. But although it worries me, I don't think we're at the point of revolution...we can continue to operate within legal channels. I doubt, though, that SCOTUS would tackle whatever case might arise from the act, which is kind of lame.
Immunity for phone companies? They should have it, as they acted as agents of the government...the .gov should assume their role in any lawsuits as they grant qualified immunity to all government agents.
Warrantless surveillance? Outside of the country, not on US persons--have at it. [ed--obviously--an extraterritorial warrant doesn't even exist...] There's a possible sticky issue with signals routed through the US, based on legal precedent relating to federal jurisdiction (where the routing of a signal across a border puts the signal within the jurisdictions crossed, including the fed if it crosses state lines), but I think holding to that re: international calling misses the point re: intelligence gathering. Plus, as non-US persons outside of US jurisdiction, the targets have no legal standing to object.
Warrantless surveillance within the country worries me; the old FISA rules were just right, IMHO. Warrantless for a limited period in exigent circumstances, with the need to secure a warrant to continue. But although it worries me, I don't think we're at the point of revolution...we can continue to operate within legal channels. I doubt, though, that SCOTUS would tackle whatever case might arise from the act, which is kind of lame.
A crime is a crime is a crime....... Shouldn't matter if it's a company, a private citizen, private organization or a government entity.
Both the teleco's and the government agency's KNOWINGLY broke the LAW.
They broke a law that applied specifically to government agency's and their agents.
So much for the rule of law, welcome to the dictatorship Citizen Smith.
Mind telling me what this "Checks and Balances" thingy that your government harps on about is again?
Last edited:
As long as the lobbyist check cashes it is all balancedMind telling me what this "Checks and Balances" thingy that your government harps on about is again?
Grunt..
You don't know anything about the concept of qualified immunity.A crime is a crime is a crime....... Shouldn't matter if it's a company, a private citizen, private organization or a government entity.
Both the teleco's and the government agency's KNOWINGLY broke the LAW.
They broke a law that applied specifically to government agency's and their agents.
So much for the rule of law, welcome to the dictatorship Citizen Smith.
Mind telling me what this "Checks and Balances" thingy that your government harps on about is again?
You're also confusing civil action with criminal prosecution.
judging from his location, he's in a romulan/klingon stronghold. he's rather consistent.
Since (B) applies, no law has been broken by the telecom companies.18 USC 2511 (2) (a): said:
Completely apart from the criminal code, however, people could sue the telecom companies for claimed damages (don't think anyone can actually show any, ED: and I think it'd be a qualified immunity issue anyhow, now that I think about it, since their actions were only at the behest of the .gov), or could sue the government in what's called a Constitutional tort, which is a lawsuit brought against the government for a violation of Constitutional rights. (In this case, the 4th amendment right, violated by the gov't through their authorized agent.)
The telecoms themselves can't be sued for a violation of Constitutional rights, since no private entity has the legal standing to violate anyone's rights...rights exist only vis-a-vis the government and a private citizen. (One citizen can sue another for damages enumerated in the federal civil code, for example, undue discrimination in the workplace...but that's a separate issue.)
But, as gov't agents in this case, the telecoms could have participated in a violation of rights...however, just like a police officer or fireman acting within the scope of his authority (in this case, the scope of the authority being defined by the authorization letters given to the telecoms by the US Dept of Justice), the .gov is obliged to take the place of the agent in any lawsuit due to the Federal Tort Claims Act.
As far as laws being broken, you'd need to find someone (presumably in the next administration) to prosecute the DOJ officials for conspiracy to break 18 USC 2511 by willfully misrepresenting the legality of the authorization to wiretap to the telecoms. Since the burden of proof is fairly high and there's no real way to prove that the drafters knew their legal reasoning was specious (unless you've got internal emails to the contrary or something, which would totally change things), you've got no criminal case even if someone wanted to take it there.
MD
Last edited:
Carlin was right, the corporations own the country and the democracy is a lie.
Drama queen.
Seriously...there are actual examples of corporate control over the marketplace and undue influence in politics that you could use, instead of appending this rhetoric to a completely different, unrelated situation. It's not like the telecom companies were in this for their own gain.
But the fact is that our system works pretty well, and there's no way to make everything smooth or good for any sustainable period of time. We can muddle along, however, and the US political system muddles pretty well. And for all the yakking about influence within our own system, we work pretty well compared to most countries. Not perfect, certainly able to be bettered.
But throwing up your hands and declaring the American democratic cause lost is like saying there's no hope for your slightly aging cruiseliner while you're surrounded by a sea of burning rowboats. (Or inventing a ridiculously stretched analogy to make a simple point...)