Fret for your latte and fret for your lawsuit and...

[NikFu S.]

Congress votes to immunize lawbreaking telecoms, legalize warrantless eavesdropping

The Democratic-led Congress this afternoon voted to put an end to the NSA spying scandal, as the Senate approved a bill -- approved last week by the House -- to immunize lawbreaking telecoms, terminate all pending lawsuits against them, and vest whole new warrantless eavesdropping powers in the President. The vote in favor of the new FISA bill was 69-28. Barack Obama joined every Senate Republican (and every House Republican other than one) by voting in favor of it, while his now-vanquished primary rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, voted against it. John McCain wasn't present for any of the votes, but shared Obama's support for the bill. The bill will now be sent to an extremely happy George Bush, who already announced that he enthusiastically supports it, and he will sign it into law very shortly.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...ote/index.html

Senate Passes Unconstitutional Spying Bill And Grants Sweeping Immunity To Phone Companies (7/9/2008)

ACLU Announces Legal Challenge To Follow President’s Signature

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general...s20080709.html

I'm praying for mayhem.

[Manarius]

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20080702.html

Similarly, when the FISA amendments were being addressed in the House during the June 20, 2008 debate, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence J.M. McConnell sent Speaker Pelosi a letter for the record analyzing the provisions. This letter stated, among other things, that: “The framework contained in the bill for obtaining retroactive liability protection is narrowly tailored. ... The liability protection provision does not extend to the Government or to Government officials and it does not immunize any criminal conduct.” (Emphasis added.)

Because this legislation addresses only civil liability, Senator Obama has a unique opportunity to show that his leadership as President would, in fact, bring a change to Washington. Indeed, he can both support the amendments now pending (for the reasons he stated), and make clear that as President he will request that his attorney general determine if criminal actions should be taken for the blatant violations of the criminal law. Actually, he has already said this, but in a larger context.

So basically, we can sue the telecom companies for criminal charges, but not civil ones. Sounds like a half win...

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by Manarius

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20080702.html

So basically, we can sue the telecom companies for criminal charges, but not civil ones. Sounds like a half win...

Sounds like a complete win to me. As long as the acts were within the provisions of the law---no suits of any kind. Its already automatic if the government or individuals stray oustide the provisions of the law they are subject to civil and criminal actions.

Lee

[Manarius]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

Sounds like a complete win to me. As long as the acts were within the provisions of the law---no suits of any kind. Its already automatic if the government or individuals stray oustide the provisions of the law they are subject to civil and criminal actions.

Lee

Well, when Barack Obama wins the presidency, I'm sure he'll exploit that loophole when prosecuting the Telecom companies for illegally spying on Americans.

[Landshark]

Originally Posted by Manarius

Well, when Barack Obama wins the presidency, I'm sure he'll exploit that loophole when prosecuting the Telecom companies for illegally spying on Americans.

*when?*

with 143 days in the Senate, do you think he has the experience to be Commander-In-Chief of the US miltary? to run this country as its President? < P.S. - don't forget to ignore the question and do some Bush-bashing!>

with 143 days experience, do you think he would even be qualified to manage a Jiffy Lube muffler shop? a McDonalds?

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by Manarius

Well, when Barack Obama wins the presidency, I'm sure he'll exploit that loophole when prosecuting the Telecom companies for illegally spying on Americans.

You dream, of course. He is no different than any other politican, just much less qualified.

Lee

[Landshark]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

You dream, of course. He is no different than any other politican, just much less qualified.

Lee

they are all pretty much scumbags, but at least most know what might be involved with such a promotion.

[Manarius]

Originally Posted by Landshark

*when?*

with 143 days in the Senate, do you think he has the experience to be Commander-In-Chief of the US miltary? to run this country as its President? < P.S. - don't forget to ignore the question and do some Bush-bashing!>

with 143 days experience, do you think he would even be qualified to manage a Jiffy Lube muffler shop? a McDonalds?

Do I think he has the experience? Yes.

Originally Posted by lhopp77

You dream, of course. He is no different than any other politican, just much less qualified.

Lee

The question is, why are both of you deflecting away from the point. The point is that Bush asked the telecom companies to ILLEGALLY spy on Americans and you two would rather get your knickers in a twist over Barack Obama's perceived lack of experience than be concerned over the fact that Big Brother is right in your face and you are willing to let it happen.

You two sound like the old people in the 1960 election where Nixon got slammed by then Junior Senator from Mass. John F. Kennedy.

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by Manarius

Do I think he has the experience? Yes.



The question is, why are both of you deflecting away from the point. The point is that Bush asked the telecom companies to ILLEGALLY spy on Americans and you two would rather get your knickers in a twist over Barack Obama's perceived lack of experience than be concerned over the fact that Big Brother is right in your face and you are willing to let it happen.

As to thinking he has "experience"--there's one born every few minutes.

I think you need to go back and review what Bush approved in terms of wiretapping and what he asked the phone companies to do. I believe you will find that the law covers it all and makes it legal and precludes retroactive lawsuits against the companies.

H3ll, I still agree with listening in to possible terrorists where one end is in a suspicious foreign country. If your government didn't protect you, I suspect you would be one of the first to cry for help and blame them for not doing their job. Obviously related to many of the people in New Orleans.

Lee

[NikFu S.]

So what is people's problem with warrants?

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by NikFu S.

So what is people's problem with warrants?

Nothing wrong with the warrant requirement under normal domestic situations, but where potential terrorists are concerned (AND AGAIN--one end of the conversation is in a foreign country) frequently time is of the essence. Simple.

Lee

[NikFu S.]

The idea of "potential terrorist" is fuzzy to me. What exactly are the prerequisites and how do spying agencies get a hold of someone like that in the first place? How long does it REALLY take to get a warrant?

If they are just randomly tracing and listening in on calls because they are in "suspicious foreign countries" I can understand the concern but I'm still not OK with it. My main reason for that is terrorism can come in any form, from any place. Either you know who is up to something or you don't.
I think if you ave that kind of testimonial evidence getting a warrant should be easy. If not, why not instead of circumventing them altogether, solve the problem by speeding up the warrant obtaining process? There is no reason you shouldn't be able to get one the same day you think you need it other than lazy ass people being slow.
I don't like the idea of government agencies or anyone working above established law, and I don't care for what reason. If it doesn't work well enough, make it more efficient. It's like they see the law as a problem, yet it's doing exactly what it was intended to do, which is prevent people from doing things they are not supposed to.

[SVeXy96]

Forget all the legallities of yes you can spy on this person or no not on that one, If you are in court and someone has evidence that another person aid something self incriminating, well guess what if you have it on tape its proof. I hate it how you can have an audio tape of someone admitting murder, but if it was recorded illegally they get off the hook! What kind of retarded reality do we live in? And as far as ANYONE being qualified to be our Commander In Chief...of the U.S. Military especially c'mon I think they should have at least 20 years of honorable service at least 1 tour in 1 war that involved the U.S. and LIVED not visited in at least 2 other countries while serving active duty THEN and only MAYBE THEN will you be ready to run a country!
Thank you ladies and gentlemen, but please no autographs

[NikFu S.]

If something is recorded illegally there is no way to prove the context. Something like a recording can be easily faked or altered, so it needs to be supervised which requires bureaucracy, like it or not.

Take a look at the situation from all sides.

I also out think out of fairness everyone who is minimally qualified should be able to run for president regardless of "service".
I personally do not like the high rate of military people who get stressed out or who are bigots or generally close-minded either due to their training, or conversely the personality type that forces/excites them to join in the first place.

Overall, I think intelligence is the most important trait. Anyone who can prove they have that should be eligible.

[SVeXy96]

Speaking as a person who is in the service I just don't like the idea of someone who has no idea where I come from making decisions that will alter my life. If they have never been in my shoes how could they ever conceive the true sacrifices we make on a daily basis. Things everyone else takes for granted.
Honestly its just hopeless really. Ask anyone and we all think we have the answer, we all think that if we were in power that we could make the right decisions until we sit down in that chair with the phone in our hands and the press in our face and realize there isn't a right decision because no matter which way you go someone is gonna hate you for it.