Spy powers deal struck in Congress

[RightIsWrong]

Sorry that I don't have any hard source yet...my wife called and said that the story just hit the Dow Jones news line (she does day trading and gets news stories about 20 minutes before the AP releases them).

If this deal includes immunity for the telecos and bypasses the fundamental structure of our republic (laws being determined valid by the courts and not Congress), I'm going to be advocating voting against every single member of both houses that gave a "Yea" on this one.

I'll keep looking for a link or story on this but it probably will take a short while.

 

[StageLeft]

They need to fvcking burn the criminals in this one. This asinine idea that laws can be thrown "to fight terrorism", ones that are integral to the country's identity are too much.

 

[PokerGuy]

I'm 100% against granting retroactive immunity to the companies involved, the laws must be followed, even more so in these trying times. Using the war on terror to discard laws whenever they are not convenient is not the answer......

 

[ayabe]

You can thank Hoyer, he's the one spearheading this despite his repeated denials in public.

Him - Pelosi, Reid, and Rahm Emmanuel sadly, all of them need to go.

Obamarama also needs to come out against this immediately if not sooner.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
I'm 100% against granting retroactive immunity to the companies involved, the laws must be followed, even more so in these trying times. Using the war on terror to discard laws whenever they are not convenient is not the answer......

While I agree that retroactive immunity is 100% wrong, the sad irony with the resulting punish the law breakers lies in the fact that rascals that done the dirty deed will escape unpunished and their punishment will be borne by the stockholders of these very telco's.

Maybe its a good precedent to set, allow a moral degenerate to be your CEO, and its will cost
the stockholders, but unless the laws are re written, the CEO's who made the decision will escape both civil and criminal liability.

In MHO, we need to prosecute these very CEO's for criminal conspiracy. Which will certainly not happen under that turkey Mukacey. And maybe its just best to keep kicking the can down the road past 1/20/2009 when a new Justice department can target the real offenders.

 

[fskimospy]

Obama has already repeatedly come out against any amnesty deal for the telecoms. Someone else mentioned it, but it bears repeating. It's funny how many Republicans (and Democrats) are so vehemently against the lawbreaking illegal immigrants as to never EVER want to grant them amnesty. (rule of law!) Now they are fighting tooth and nail to grant amnesty to huge corporations.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Obama has already repeatedly come out against any amnesty deal for the telecoms. Someone else mentioned it, but it bears repeating. It's funny how many Republicans (and Democrats) are so vehemently against the lawbreaking illegal immigrants as to never EVER want to grant them amnesty. (rule of law!) Now they are fighting tooth and nail to grant amnesty to huge corporations.

Obama is supporting John Barrow, who is a big part of this and thus has no credibility.

He needs to drop his support, post haste.

By the by, here's the text for immunity:

[A] civil action may not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court against any person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community, and shall be properly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the district court of the United States in which such action is pending that . . . (4) the assistance alleged to have been provided . . . was --

(A) in connection with intelligence activity involving communications that was (i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007 and (ii) designed to prevent or detect a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation of a terrorist attack, against the United States" and

(B) the subject of a written request or directive . . . indicating that the activity was (i) authorized by the President; and (ii) determined to be lawful.

***************

Just fucking terrific.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
While I agree that retroactive immunity is 100% wrong, the sad irony with the resulting punish the law breakers lies in the fact that rascals that done the dirty deed will escape unpunished and their punishment will be borne by the stockholders of these very telco's.

Yeah, unfortunately I think you're right on that one, the real perps in that mess will get away scott free.... However, as far as I'm concerned, it's even more important that the message gets sent that the next time someone in govt (don't care which party) tries to get some company to go along with something shady, there is clear precendent that it's going to cost them, and they will think twice before agreeing to it. It's up to the shareholders to make sure that those holding the corporate controls make the right choices.....

 

[OrByte]

I hope this isn't true,

If is, then this is just another example of how joeblow citizen gets screwed

while corporations get protected

and congress is simply doing business as usual

man this has GOT to stop. :|

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Obama has already repeatedly come out against any amnesty deal for the telecoms. Someone else mentioned it, but it bears repeating. It's funny how many Republicans (and Democrats) are so vehemently against the lawbreaking illegal immigrants as to never EVER want to grant them amnesty. (rule of law!) Now they are fighting tooth and nail to grant amnesty to huge corporations.

Obama is supporting John Barrow, who is a big part of this and thus has no credibility.

He needs to drop his support, post haste.

By the by, here's the text for immunity:

[A] civil action may not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court against any person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community, and shall be properly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the district court of the United States in which such action is pending that . . . (4) the assistance alleged to have been provided . . . was --

(A) in connection with intelligence activity involving communications that was (i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007 and (ii) designed to prevent or detect a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation of a terrorist attack, against the United States" and

(B) the subject of a written request or directive . . . indicating that the activity was (i) authorized by the President; and (ii) determined to be lawful.

***************

Just fucking terrific.

Why does Obama have to drop support for every person that disagrees with him on one issue? Sure this is an important one, but that's pretty unreasonable.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Obama has already repeatedly come out against any amnesty deal for the telecoms. Someone else mentioned it, but it bears repeating. It's funny how many Republicans (and Democrats) are so vehemently against the lawbreaking illegal immigrants as to never EVER want to grant them amnesty. (rule of law!) Now they are fighting tooth and nail to grant amnesty to huge corporations.

Obama is supporting John Barrow, who is a big part of this and thus has no credibility.

He needs to drop his support, post haste.

By the by, here's the text for immunity:

[A] civil action may not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court against any person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community, and shall be properly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the district court of the United States in which such action is pending that . . . (4) the assistance alleged to have been provided . . . was --

(A) in connection with intelligence activity involving communications that was (i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007 and (ii) designed to prevent or detect a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation of a terrorist attack, against the United States" and

(B) the subject of a written request or directive . . . indicating that the activity was (i) authorized by the President; and (ii) determined to be lawful.

***************

Just fucking terrific.

Why does Obama have to drop support for every person that disagrees with him on one issue? Sure this is an important one, but that's pretty unreasonable.

Well if you take this and the fact that John Barrow has run ads accusing Democrats of cutting and running in Iraq, uses terms like the "Death Tax" - Obama cannot support him.

here's a nice ad:

Text

 

[RightIsWrong]

After more than a year of partisan acrimony over government surveillance powers, Democratic and Republican leaders have agreed to a bipartisan deal that would be the most sweeping rewrite of spy powers in three decades. The House is likely to vote on the measure Friday, House aides said.

Removing the final barrier to action on the measure, which has been hashed out in recent weeks by senior lawmakers in both parties, House Democratic leaders decided to allow a vote on the bill, despite the opposition of many in their party.

The new agreement broadens the authority to spy ...

WSJ preview

If anyone has a WSJ subscription and can get the rest of the article.....

 

[ayabe]

Here is a link to the full text of the bill, it's over 100 pages, so get comfortable:

Text

 

[brencat]

I'm reading the responses in this thread, and I seriously can't believe you guys actually want to see companies that employ people here in the U.S. sued and punished for helping the government spy on TERRORISTS.

There seems to be rampant paranoia that the gov't is somehow listening to your conversation with your girlfriends, buddies, etc.. No, that's not happening. If you happen to be in contact with a known terrorist in a foreign country, I'd worry. These telco companies are also transmitting calls in some cases that happen to pass thru our shores. Again, the gov't has no interest in listening to joe-blow's calls, yet so many of you seem to think that is what they would do.

Maybe I'm missing something here but paranoia seems to be off the charts. Not trying to draw a flame war btw, seriously...convince me that this compromise that Congress is working on is a bad thing. A secret court gets discretion and review (so you all get your privacy protection), and the U.S. gets to continue its war against plotters, schemers, and terrorists.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: brencat
I'm reading the responses in this thread, and I seriously can't believe you guys actually want to see companies that employ people here in the U.S. sued and punished for helping the government spy on TERRORISTS.

There seems to be rampant paranoia that the gov't is somehow listening to your conversation with your girlfriends, buddies, etc.. No, that's not happening. If you happen to be in contact with a known terrorist in a foreign country, I'd worry. These telco companies are also transmitting calls in some cases that happen to pass thru our shores. Again, the gov't has no interest in listening to joe-blow's calls, yet so many of you seem to think that is what they would do.

Maybe I'm missing something here but paranoia seems to be off the charts. Not trying to draw a flame war btw, seriously...convince me that this compromise that Congress is working on is a bad thing. A secret court gets discretion and review (so you all get your privacy protection), and the U.S. gets to continue its war against plotters, schemers, and terrorists.

Agreed. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about. Nothing wrong with trading a little bit of liberty for protection. I'm more concerned about American lives rather than the American way of life. And because corporations employ people, protecting corporations means protecting people.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: brencat
I'm reading the responses in this thread, and I seriously can't believe you guys actually want to see companies that employ people here in the U.S. sued and punished for helping the government spy on TERRORISTS.

There seems to be rampant paranoia that the gov't is somehow listening to your conversation with your girlfriends, buddies, etc.. No, that's not happening. If you happen to be in contact with a known terrorist in a foreign country, I'd worry. These telco companies are also transmitting calls in some cases that happen to pass thru our shores. Again, the gov't has no interest in listening to joe-blow's calls, yet so many of you seem to think that is what they would do.

Maybe I'm missing something here but paranoia seems to be off the charts. Not trying to draw a flame war btw, seriously...convince me that this compromise that Congress is working on is a bad thing. A secret court gets discretion and review (so you all get your privacy protection), and the U.S. gets to continue its war against plotters, schemers, and terrorists.

Right......are you serious?

The law says you can not wiretap without a court order...what is unclear about that?

Bush knew, the telco's knew it, and knowingly and willing broke the law. It's that simple.

So unless you want to argue that the president is above the law, which brings all sorts or new problems, how can you possibly support it?

Do you know why we even have a law about this? It's because during the Vietnam war, Congress found out that the government was tapping a lot of people's phone, like those mean anti-war protesters, and even people like Martin Luther King.

The gov was taking advantage of the Vietnam war and using that as an excuse to wiretap all sorts of people. Congress was pissed, and passed the FISA to prevent this again. That law has been in place for many years, and is very clear.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: brencat
I'm reading the responses in this thread, and I seriously can't believe you guys actually want to see companies that employ people here in the U.S. sued and punished for helping the government spy on TERRORISTS.

There seems to be rampant paranoia that the gov't is somehow listening to your conversation with your girlfriends, buddies, etc.. No, that's not happening. If you happen to be in contact with a known terrorist in a foreign country, I'd worry. These telco companies are also transmitting calls in some cases that happen to pass thru our shores. Again, the gov't has no interest in listening to joe-blow's calls, yet so many of you seem to think that is what they would do.

Maybe I'm missing something here but paranoia seems to be off the charts. Not trying to draw a flame war btw, seriously...convince me that this compromise that Congress is working on is a bad thing. A secret court gets discretion and review (so you all get your privacy protection), and the U.S. gets to continue its war against plotters, schemers, and terrorists.

I'm confused by your response. There was already a system in place (FISA), which basically rubber-stamped wire-tap warrants that the Bush administration could have used. But no, they had to go around the law. The issue we all have is that there is no judicial oversight. Had Bush&co used the proper channels, the issue wouldn't be such a big deal.

Additionally, the FISA court makes things easier, as you can start a tap and then only have to request a warrant within 24 hours of the tap starting.

Edit: link to NYTimes article

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: brencat
I'm reading the responses in this thread, and I seriously can't believe you guys actually want to see companies that employ people here in the U.S. sued and punished for helping the government spy on TERRORISTS.

There seems to be rampant paranoia that the gov't is somehow listening to your conversation with your girlfriends, buddies, etc.. No, that's not happening. If you happen to be in contact with a known terrorist in a foreign country, I'd worry. These telco companies are also transmitting calls in some cases that happen to pass thru our shores. Again, the gov't has no interest in listening to joe-blow's calls, yet so many of you seem to think that is what they would do.

Maybe I'm missing something here but paranoia seems to be off the charts. Not trying to draw a flame war btw, seriously...convince me that this compromise that Congress is working on is a bad thing. A secret court gets discretion and review (so you all get your privacy protection), and the U.S. gets to continue its war against plotters, schemers, and terrorists.

Agreed. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about. Nothing wrong with trading a little bit of liberty for protection. I'm more concerned about American lives rather than the American way of life. And because corporations employ people, protecting corporations means protecting people.

BOO!

Did I scare both of you into wiring money to my bank account to keep you safe from the terrorists?

No? Well Bush hasn't scared the vast majority of us into giving up our 4th amendment rights to keep us safe from the terrorists either. I feel sorry for and I am sickened by both of you and the others that feel that it is a fair trade.

Bush, any member of his administration that approved this and any corporate executive that approved it on their side should be facing criminal as well as civil charges.

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Bush hasn't scared the vast majority of us into giving up our 4th amendment rights to keep us safe from the terrorists either. I feel sorry for and I am sickened by both of you and the others that feel that it is a fair trade.

Bush, any member of his administration that approved this and any corporate executive that approved it on their side should be facing criminal as well as civil charges.

I can tell by your response that you weren't at ground zero on 9/11 like I was. Perhaps you'd change your tune a bit if you were. IMO, you are being ridiculously paranoid if you think they give a rats a$$ about your personal conversations.

In any event, I haven't seen a response yet from Garfield, Brainonska, or yourself that would justify suing a major corporation for helping the government, and in the process, possibly putting tens of thousands of U.S. citizens out of work if the companies are found guilty -- these are public companies we're talking about...and I don't want to see their stocks decimated for helping the gov't in its pursuit of killing terrorists.

As a typical corporation, I'd also wager that if your gov't came calling for help, you would answer the call, not analyze whether the request was violating this, that, or the other Amendment.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: brencat

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Bush hasn't scared the vast majority of us into giving up our 4th amendment rights to keep us safe from the terrorists either. I feel sorry for and I am sickened by both of you and the others that feel that it is a fair trade.

Bush, any member of his administration that approved this and any corporate executive that approved it on their side should be facing criminal as well as civil charges.

I can tell by your response that you weren't at ground zero on 9/11 like I was. Perhaps you'd change your tune a bit if you were. IMO, you are being ridiculously paranoid if you think they give a rats a$$ about your personal conversations.

In any event, I haven't seen a response yet from Garfield, Brainonska, or yourself that would justify suing a major corporation for helping the government, and in the process, possibly putting tens of thousands of U.S. citizens out of work if the companies are found guilty -- these are public companies we're talking about...and I don't want to see their stocks decimated for helping the gov't in its pursuit of killing terrorists.

As a typical corporation, I'd also wager that if your gov't came calling for help, you would answer the call, not analyze whether the request was violating this, that, or the other Amendment.

When I look out my window I see the 1st tier of "hood orniments" from the Chrysler Building. When I look out my other window I see the ESB. Last August the street underneath my building blew up (steampipe explosion).

Somehow, I am still here.

I was in the ESB on Aug 17th 2003, in an elevator between the 86 and 85th floor, before I ever moved here.

Somehow, I am still here.

A coworker who worked on the floor of Tower 2, who was 20flts below in a stairwell when the plane hit and had his whole banking group, save 2 people, wiped out, thinks this is a travesty.

Get your pussy, bed wetting, scared little tot ass out of my country if you want to take my f'ing rights because you're a coward.

I'm not, I want my rights and I am still in NYC working every damn day. There's a reason why this country was created, it's because real men created it. Ones who weren't afraid to die to keep freedom.

Too bad there are too many idiotic whimps like you around, you're a f'ing shame to their courage and dedication.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: brencat

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Bush hasn't scared the vast majority of us into giving up our 4th amendment rights to keep us safe from the terrorists either. I feel sorry for and I am sickened by both of you and the others that feel that it is a fair trade.

Bush, any member of his administration that approved this and any corporate executive that approved it on their side should be facing criminal as well as civil charges.

I can tell by your response that you weren't at ground zero on 9/11 like I was. Perhaps you'd change your tune a bit if you were. IMO, you are being ridiculously paranoid if you think they give a rats a$$ about your personal conversations.

In any event, I haven't seen a response yet from Garfield, Brainonska, or yourself that would justify suing a major corporation for helping the government, and in the process, possibly putting tens of thousands of U.S. citizens out of work if the companies are found guilty -- these are public companies we're talking about...and I don't want to see their stocks decimated for helping the gov't in its pursuit of killing terrorists.

As a typical corporation, I'd also wager that if your gov't came calling for help, you would answer the call, not analyze whether the request was violating this, that, or the other Amendment.

I can tell by your response that you haven't a clue and like to make broad generalizations and assumptions.

You are right...I wasn't at ground zero when the towers were attacked. But only because I missed my train from Jersey in that AM or I would have been on Broad St just 4 blocks away. I did get to be there the next morning to check on all of the servers and the rest of the equipment.

You know what? I still am unwilling to give up one damned millimeter let alone that mile that the Bush administration wants to push the the envelope regarding the dissolving of my constitutional rights.

Also, your ridiculous fear tactic of telecos or any other company having to put thousands of their own customers out of work so that they exacerbate their own peril and hasten their own downfall is complete fairy tale from the Brothers Grimm themselves.

Also, if you knew anything on the topic, you would know that there was one teleco that refused. Ironically, their CEO was indicted for insider trading shortly thereafter. Is that the kinds of men that you really want to have the power to spy on you at any time?

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I'm not, I want my rights and I am still in NYC working every damn day. There's a reason why this country was created, it's because real men created it. Ones who weren't afraid to die to keep freedom.

Too bad there are too many idiotic whimps like you around, you're a f'ing shame to their courage and dedication.

Wow...touched a nerve did I ? :laugh:

May I suggest decaf then?

Believe me, I would take a bullet for this country or my family in a heartbeat -- if you knew me in real life, I doubt there'd be any question of that.

What annoys me however is when I hear people like you say sh*t like this and spouting bullshit about rights and freedoms when we're talking about protecting corporations from lawsuits because they let the gov't use their systems and network to spy on TERRORISTS. You know...bad guys...that want to kill us. Not you paranoid delusional types that worry big brother is listening to y'all brag about how many women you serviced this month.

Again...why has no one addressed my question on protecting companies from being sued and putting thousands out of work if they lose the case????

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: brencat

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I'm not, I want my rights and I am still in NYC working every damn day. There's a reason why this country was created, it's because real men created it. Ones who weren't afraid to die to keep freedom.

Too bad there are too many idiotic whimps like you around, you're a f'ing shame to their courage and dedication.

Wow...touched a nerve did I ? :laugh:

May I suggest decaf then?

Believe me, I would take a bullet for this country or my family in a heartbeat -- if you knew me in real life, I doubt there'd be any question of that.

What annoys me however is when I hear people like you say sh*t like this and spouting bullshit about rights and freedoms when we're talking about protecting corporations from lawsuits because they let the gov't use their systems and network to spy on TERRORISTS. You know...bad guys...that want to kill us. Not you paranoid delusional types that worry big brother is listening to y'all brag about how many women you serviced this month.

Again...why has no one addressed my question on protecting companies from being sued and putting thousands out of work if they lose the case????

Once again....you are not very educated on the subject.

Those damned terrorist Quakers!!!

Documents released today by the American Civil Liberties Union confirm the Department of Defense (DOD) has been ?spying? on peaceful protestors.

The documents reveal the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), a Quaker organization committed to the principles of nonviolence, came under Pentagon surveillance on several occasions last year for organizing or supporting peaceful protest activity.

The Service Committee became lead plaintiff in a federal lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union earlier this year to uncover exactly who the Pentagon is spying on and why. The requests were made under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed in the wake of reports that the Defense Department has been conducting secret surveillance of legal protest activities and individuals whose only reported ?wrong-doing? was ?attending a peace rally.?

The FOIA documents obtained from the suit note DOD surveillance in February and March, 2005, of email announcing peace demonstrations in two cities. Both activities were organized by or conducted in partnership with one of AFSC?s regional offices.

?The Department of the Army has confirmed through our FOIA request that they had AFSC under surveillance in spite of our Quaker adherence to nonviolence and peaceful protest,? states Michael McConnell, director of the AFSC Great Lakes Region, where documented instances of DOD spying occurred. ?Besides being a waste of time and taxpayer money, this essentially amounts to a ?fishing expedition? that undermines rather than enhances national security. This disclosure of documents means that no one is safe from the arbitrary intrusive eye of government surveillance.?

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
your ridiculous fear tactic of telecos or any other company having to put thousands out of work so that they exacerbate their own peril and hasten their own downfall is complete fairy tale from the Brothers Grimm themselves.

Also, if you knew anything on the topic, you would know that there was one teleco that refused. Ironically, their CEO was indicted for insider trading shortly thereafter. Is that the kinds of men that you really want to have the power to spy on you at any time?

Hey genius...these are public companies. Owned by shareholders. Public image is everything. WTF do you think would happen to the stock prices if they were indicted? They would be cut in half overnight.

What happens next? Shareholders demand returns, right? So company is forced to spend millions on a public relations blitz to shore up it's image and defend against costly lawsuits. Maybe this follows with layoffs to cut expenses to help put a floor under their stock price. All stuff that takes them away from developing next-gen technology and products and nonsense that could have been avoided.

Finally, yes I am aware that one company refused. But like I said, most times, if your gov't comes knocking you don't spend too much time debating whether or not to help...especially with something like fighting terrorism. You help.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: brencat

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
your ridiculous fear tactic of telecos or any other company having to put thousands out of work so that they exacerbate their own peril and hasten their own downfall is complete fairy tale from the Brothers Grimm themselves.

Also, if you knew anything on the topic, you would know that there was one teleco that refused. Ironically, their CEO was indicted for insider trading shortly thereafter. Is that the kinds of men that you really want to have the power to spy on you at any time?

Hey genius...these are public companies. Owned by shareholders. Public image is everything. WTF do you think would happen to the stock prices if they were indicted? They would be cut in half overnight.

What happens next? Shareholders demand returns, right? So company is forced to spend millions on a public relations blitz to shore up it's image and defend against costly lawsuits. Maybe this follows with layoffs to cut expenses to help put a floor under their stock price. All stuff that takes them away from developing next-gen technology and products and nonsense that could have been avoided.

Finally, yes I am aware that one company refused. But like I said, most times, if your gov't comes knocking you don't spend too much time debating whether or not to help...especially with something like fighting terrorism. You help.

I understand the concept of PR with public companies and the result on their shareholders. But you know what....there is ALWAYS another company there to pick up the slack and those shareholders that left the first will buy into the latter.

Also, if the government comes to you and asks you to do something illegal....no matter who is asking...it is still illegal terrorism or not.