Spy powers deal struck in Congress

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: brencat
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

Ok, I'll bite. Can you tell me how exactly you know they were listening on "terrorists" without any oversight whatsoever? Who exactly verified who or what they were monitoring?? Nobody. That was the whole point of going around the FISA court setup, they wanted to be absolutely sure there was no oversight of their activities. If they were just trying to monitor the bad guys, why exactly would they need to do it without the secret court oversight that was set up specifically for that purpose?

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????

Huh? Company breaks the law, company gets sued. That's how it should work, and investors know that. It's a risk they take when buying shares. There would not be "thousands out of work", that's complete BS. The business the telecoms are engaged in is still there, and you still need the people to do those jobs. It would simply mean those companies would have to pay the penalties for violating the law. Pure and simple.

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
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.

Context. The gov't came to these companies when 9/11 was relatively fresh in peoples minds, not a fond far away memory like it is today for most people.

Your govt asks you to help catch terrorists. I'm betting 9.5 out of 10 times, you help and you do it without or with little question or concern. Unless you have a really good attorney in-house who may happen to notice a nuance between the request and a possible constitutional issue down the road. Most corporate attorneys and even a fair majority of law enforcement people I'm betting aren't that diligent with picking up on that.

And now you think it's okay to sue them for not having constitutional lawyers on staff...great.

 

[Craig234]

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.

That's idiotic - and your insulting tone to him is ironic given that you are the one saying ridiculous things.

The telcos' stock price can easily withstand those indictments. If it couldn't and you were right, I'd be ok with that - consequences are needed to stop bad behavior with them.

But it's a ridiculous claim on your part. Are the companies' profits suddenly going to plummet if the indictments happened?

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.

Shoulda thought of that before choosing to break the law, eh? This is not a new issue - From the founding of the NSA, back in the 1950's Western Union used to secretly hand over copies of the telegrams that day for the government to search. The question is whether we stand up for rights, which means punishing violations.

It's like a cop who illegally breaks into a house to look for evidence on a murderer, then says ok that was wrong, but you're not going to throw out the evidence, which could let a murderer go free? That's exactly what it means, because that's what's needed to protect our rights - and the proof is in how rarely you hear of police breaking into houses illegally for evidence since the ruling.

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.

No, you don't. Again, this is a long-standing issue - I mentioned one example from the 50's, J. Edgar Hoover's and Nixon's abuses in the 60's and 70's provide many more examples.

Amnesty now only sends a message not to worry about breaking the law again.

 

[ayabe]

Here's what my hero Russ Feingold had to say:

"The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation. . . . The House and Senate should not be taking up this bill, which effectively guarantees immunity for telecom companies alleged to have participated in the President's illegal program, and which fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home.

Allowing courts to review the question of immunity is meaningless when the same legislation essentially requires the court to grant immunity. And under this bill, the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power."

I also just read that this will combined with the war funding bill, way to go Democrats, I guess that's a good way to ensure it's passage, just attach it to a funding bill.

This way we can continue to leverage our financial future and surrender the 4th amendment in the same piece of legislation.

Bravo.

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Ok, I'll bite. Can you tell me how exactly you know they were listening on "terrorists" without any oversight whatsoever? Who exactly verified who or what they were monitoring?? Nobody. That was the whole point of going around the FISA court setup, they wanted to be absolutely sure there was no oversight of their activities. If they were just trying to monitor the bad guys, why exactly would they need to do it without the secret court oversight that was set up specifically for that purpose?

I guess that's the difference. I'm willing to cut my govt some slack in looking out for us and you and others are not. You accuse people like me of worrying about terrorists when people like you are more worried about your own govt -- the govt of the greatest and most free nation on earth.

Secondly, I don't have a problem with them "taking the gloves off" with regard to terrorists either. But I could see how if not checked, that power would eventually be abused.

So...here we are today. A compromise bill has been proposed where you get your oversight, and we can still listen to terrorist phone calls. What's the problem??

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: brencat

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
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.

Context. The gov't came to these companies when 9/11 was relatively fresh in peoples minds, not a fond far away memory like it is today for most people.

Your govt asks you to help catch terrorists. I'm betting 9.5 out of 10 times, you help and you do it without or with little question or concern. Unless you have a really good attorney in-house who may happen to notice a nuance between the request and a possible constitutional issue down the road. Most corporate attorneys and even a fair majority of law enforcement people I'm betting aren't that diligent with picking up on that.

And now you think it's okay to sue them for not having constitutional lawyers on staff...great.

Gotta love posters who just make crap up as they go. Lawyers in these areas didn't need to catch 'a nuance', this is the sort of obvious lawbreaking they know well.

Your statements only reflect your ignorance of the way the lawyers work - maybe for you it's something you don't know about, so you say the lawyers have no idea about it.

No, it has a lot more to do with politics, strong-arming, contracts and such than not knowing the law.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: brencat

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Ok, I'll bite. Can you tell me how exactly you know they were listening on "terrorists" without any oversight whatsoever? Who exactly verified who or what they were monitoring?? Nobody. That was the whole point of going around the FISA court setup, they wanted to be absolutely sure there was no oversight of their activities. If they were just trying to monitor the bad guys, why exactly would they need to do it without the secret court oversight that was set up specifically for that purpose?

I guess that's the difference. I'm willing to cut my govt some slack in looking out for us and you and others are not. You accuse people like me of worrying about terrorists when people like you are more worried about your own govt -- the govt of the greatest and most free nation on earth.

Secondly, I don't have a problem with them "taking the gloves off" with regard to terrorists either. But I could see how if not checked, that power would eventually be abused.

So...here we are today. A compromise bill has been proposed where you get your oversight, and we can still listen to terrorist phone calls. What's the problem??

I'm guessing that you won't mind giving up a few other rights so that the government can protect you from danger then?

What about your "right" to drive or ride on any public transportation?
What about your "right" to go outside unless the weather is calm?
What about your "right" to a gun?
What about your "right" to get into water?
what about your "right" to use fire?
What about your "right" to fly on a plane?
What about your "right" to eat?
What about your "right" to watch a fireworks display?

All of those events are more likely to cause your death than a terrorist attack.

What are the odds of dying on our next flight or next trip to a shopping mall? There are more than 40,000 malls in this country, and each is open about 75 hours per week. If a person shopped for two hours each week and terrorists were able to destroy one mall per week, the odds of being at the wrong place at the wrong time would be approximately 1.5 million to 1. If terrorists destroyed one mall each month, the odds would climb to one in 6 million. This assumes the total destruction of the entire mall; if that unlikely event didn't occur, the odds would become even more favorable.

In another hypothetical but horrible scenario, let us assume that each week one commercial aircraft were hijacked and crashed. What are the odds that a person who goes on one trip per month would be in that plane? There are currently about 18,000 commercial flights a day, and if that person's trip has four flights associated with it, the odds against that person's being on a crashed plane are about 135,000 to 1. If there were only one hijacked plane per month, the odds would be about 540,000 to 1.

...............

People tend to underestimate the probability of a common event's occurring but overestimate the probability of a rare event. These findings may be due in part to the frequency with which we are exposed to news stories about the remote versus the common event. Anthrax, which has so far claimed five lives out of a population of 275 million, is a continuous story, while smoking-related illnesses, which claim about 400,000 lives per year, are not a news story at all.

...............

We need to separate the probability that an event may occur in our country and the probability that it will occur to us as individuals. In making an informed decision about my own behavior, I need to know the probability that I will be personally affected by a terrorist act, not what the probability is that such an act may occur at some place and some time.

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Lawyers in these areas didn't need to catch 'a nuance', this is the sort of obvious lawbreaking they know well.

No, it has a lot more to do with politics, strong-arming, contracts and such than not knowing the law.

Are you a lawyer Craig? Because I'm just a dumb Wall Street guy. Educate me oh elite one! You really are something else... :roll:

No, this is/was not obvious lawbreaking. Common sense suggests most companies probably are not willing to challenge their govt with a request like this, and in turn would also not expect to be sued by said govt for helping them with a vital national security issue.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: brencat

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
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.

Context. The gov't came to these companies when 9/11 was relatively fresh in peoples minds, not a fond far away memory like it is today for most people.

Your govt asks you to help catch terrorists. I'm betting 9.5 out of 10 times, you help and you do it without or with little question or concern. Unless you have a really good attorney in-house who may happen to notice a nuance between the request and a possible constitutional issue down the road. Most corporate attorneys and even a fair majority of law enforcement people I'm betting aren't that diligent with picking up on that.

And now you think it's okay to sue them for not having constitutional lawyers on staff...great.

Gotta love posters who just make crap up as they go. Lawyers in these areas didn't need to catch 'a nuance', this is the sort of obvious lawbreaking they know well.

Your statements only reflect your ignorance of the way the lawyers work - maybe for you it's something you don't know about, so you say the lawyers have no idea about it.

No, it has a lot more to do with politics, strong-arming, contracts and such than not knowing the law.

Unlike the law....a good corporate lawyer will always assume that something is illegal until he can prove or knows for certain otherwise.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: brencat
I guess that's the difference. I'm willing to cut my govt some slack in looking out for us and you and others are not.

Nothing to do with cutting the government "slack" or not. The government has already proven on previous occasions that it is willing and able to abuse the rights of groups of people, which is why the FISA court was set up to begin with. I have no problem with the fact that government is monitoring people to protect our country, that's fine. I have a problem with the fact that certain parts of government want to do it without any oversight, thereby giving the people no verification that the process is not being abused.

You accuse people like me of worrying about terrorists when people like you are more worried about your own govt -- the govt of the greatest and most free nation on earth.

There are terrorists out there, and we should be worried about them and we should do everything possible to deal with them. However, those goals can be accomplished without sacrificing the rule of law in the process. There was a system in place to do it, but the administration decided to do an end-run around it. One can only speculate as to why.....

Secondly, I don't have a problem with them "taking the gloves off" with regard to terrorists either. But I could see how if not checked, that power would eventually be abused.

It has been plenty of times in the past, and there's no reason to believe that without effective checks and balances it won't happen even more. That's why we need checks and balances.

So...here we are today. A compromise bill has been proposed where you get your oversight, and we can still listen to terrorist phone calls. What's the problem??

One, I haven't read the bill, and I don't know what provisions are in the bill, but if retroactive immunity is granted to telecoms, what exactly is going to stop this administration (or any other one) from simply ignoring this bill just like the FISA court was ignored this time? The telecoms will happily help them ignore the laws again, because there are no consequences to breaking the law.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: brencat
No, this is/was not obvious lawbreaking.

I'm fairly certain every company is aware of laws regarding privacy and they don't generally turn over documents without a valid court order. They willingly chose to ignore those laws, which is why they need retroactive immunity: they know they were in the wrong, they just don't want to pay for it.

Common sense suggests most companies probably are not willing to challenge their govt with a request like this

At least one company did, and every company SHOULD. In a nation where there is the rule of law, they should have said "there is a legal process to go through for this. We will go to great lengths to help in any way possible if you provide us subpoena's / warrants etc."

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I'm guessing that you won't mind giving up a few other rights so that the government can protect you from danger then?

What about your "right" to drive or ride on any public transportation?
What about your "right" to go outside unless the weather is calm?
What about your "right" to a gun?
What about your "right" to get into water?
what about your "right" to use fire?
What about your "right" to fly on a plane?
What about your "right" to eat?
What about your "right" to watch a fireworks display?

- My right to drive whatever I want is being undermined by global warming alarmists and $4 gasoline due to oil supplies in the U.S. being off limits.

- I own guns and would die to protect the 2nd amendment. Democrat controlled NJ is the 2nd most restrictive state in the nation.

- Your liberal buddies in Seattle are trying to ban beach bonfires

- I used to buy and set off fireworks in NY/NJ as a kid. Not any more, thanks to liberals.

Hmm...starting to see a pattern here.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: brencat

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Ok, I'll bite. Can you tell me how exactly you know they were listening on "terrorists" without any oversight whatsoever? Who exactly verified who or what they were monitoring?? Nobody. That was the whole point of going around the FISA court setup, they wanted to be absolutely sure there was no oversight of their activities. If they were just trying to monitor the bad guys, why exactly would they need to do it without the secret court oversight that was set up specifically for that purpose?

I guess that's the difference. I'm willing to cut my govt some slack in looking out for us and you and others are not. You accuse people like me of worrying about terrorists when people like you are more worried about your own govt -- the govt of the greatest and most free nation on earth.

Secondly, I don't have a problem with them "taking the gloves off" with regard to terrorists either. But I could see how if not checked, that power would eventually be abused.

So...here we are today. A compromise bill has been proposed where you get your oversight, and we can still listen to terrorist phone calls. What's the problem??

You misuse the word 'slack' - you cut the rope. 'These Euphemisms are ridiculous, like 'gloves' for the terrorists, when the policy you are defending is indefinite detention.

You don't get to use that 'greatest most free' nation rhetoric, either, we do, since we're the ones pushing the policies that keep it great and free, while you try to undermine them.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: brencat

Originally posted by: Craig234
Lawyers in these areas didn't need to catch 'a nuance', this is the sort of obvious lawbreaking they know well.

No, it has a lot more to do with politics, strong-arming, contracts and such than not knowing the law.

Are you a lawyer Craig? Because I'm just a dumb Wall Street guy. Educate me oh elite one! You really are something else... :roll:

No, this is/was not obvious lawbreaking. Common sense suggests most companies probably are not willing to challenge their govt with a request like this, and in turn would also not expect to be sued by said govt for helping them with a vital national security issue.

I've worked with some corporate legal issues, with corporate lawyers, and you show no understanding of the operational side of corporate law.

Your attempt at facetious self-deprecation is probably better made more sincerely. I'm not going to say I've confirmed this with corporate lawyers, but this is the sort of thing that's very basic for them, and they don't need to be constitutional lawyers, which you misleadingly try to imply would be ridiculous but needed to catch this, any lawyer of the sort they'd normally have for issues in this area would be very familiar with the law on it, IMO. I stand by my post that it wasn't legal obscurity but other factors behind their choice.

It's pretty simple. You either enforce the laws we have, or they get broken. You are on the side of making up excuses for them and allowing the law to be broken.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: brencat

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I'm guessing that you won't mind giving up a few other rights so that the government can protect you from danger then?

What about your "right" to drive or ride on any public transportation?
What about your "right" to go outside unless the weather is calm?
What about your "right" to a gun?
What about your "right" to get into water?
what about your "right" to use fire?
What about your "right" to fly on a plane?
What about your "right" to eat?
What about your "right" to watch a fireworks display?

- My right to drive whatever I want is being undermined by global warming alarmists and $4 gasoline due to oil supplies in the U.S. being off limits.

- I own guns and would die to protect the 2nd amendment. Democrat controlled NJ is the 2nd most restrictive state in the nation.

- Your liberal buddies in Seattle are trying to ban beach bonfires

- I used to buy and set off fireworks in NY/NJ as a kid. Not any more, thanks to liberals.

Hmm...starting to see a pattern here.

You should be grateful of all of those efforts. They are saving you from certain death!

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: brencat

Originally posted by: Craig234
Lawyers in these areas didn't need to catch 'a nuance', this is the sort of obvious lawbreaking they know well.

No, it has a lot more to do with politics, strong-arming, contracts and such than not knowing the law.

Are you a lawyer Craig? Because I'm just a dumb Wall Street guy. Educate me oh elite one! You really are something else... :roll:

No, this is/was not obvious lawbreaking. Common sense suggests most companies probably are not willing to challenge their govt with a request like this, and in turn would also not expect to be sued by said govt for helping them with a vital national security issue.

Lets ask the federal judge that was given this case what he thinks. I'm pretty sure he's a lawyer.

AT&T's alleged actions here violate the constitutional rights clearly established in Keith. Moreover, because 'the very action in question has previously been held unlawful', AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: brencat

Originally posted by: Craig234
Lawyers in these areas didn't need to catch 'a nuance', this is the sort of obvious lawbreaking they know well.

No, it has a lot more to do with politics, strong-arming, contracts and such than not knowing the law.

Are you a lawyer Craig? Because I'm just a dumb Wall Street guy. Educate me oh elite one! You really are something else... :roll:

No, this is/was not obvious lawbreaking. Common sense suggests most companies probably are not willing to challenge their govt with a request like this, and in turn would also not expect to be sued by said govt for helping them with a vital national security issue.

common sense suggests these companies would go along with it as long as they didnt get caught.

but they did get caught

which is why we see this slimy piece of legislation trying to cover their A$$!!

they broke the law man. Do you at least grasp that?

 

[SP33Demon]

More trampling of our constitutional rights by this POS administration. I can't believe they are getting away with this.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: brencat

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I'm guessing that you won't mind giving up a few other rights so that the government can protect you from danger then?

What about your "right" to drive or ride on any public transportation?
What about your "right" to go outside unless the weather is calm?
What about your "right" to a gun?
What about your "right" to get into water?
what about your "right" to use fire?
What about your "right" to fly on a plane?
What about your "right" to eat?
What about your "right" to watch a fireworks display?

- My right to drive whatever I want is being undermined by global warming alarmists and $4 gasoline due to oil supplies in the U.S. being off limits.

- I own guns and would die to protect the 2nd amendment. Democrat controlled NJ is the 2nd most restrictive state in the nation.

- Your liberal buddies in Seattle are trying to ban beach bonfires

- I used to buy and set off fireworks in NY/NJ as a kid. Not any more, thanks to liberals.

Hmm...starting to see a pattern here.

I see a pattern, too.

- Cultures that like to shoot off guns into the air are being restricted form doing so by liberals.

- The right to drive as fast as you want on public highways is restricted by liberals.

- The right of miners to blow up the structures in Yosemite are being restricted by environmentalists (think that's a silly invented example? Our national parks got their start when John Muir alerted Abraham Lincoln to miners' plans to do just that, resulting in federal protection and eventually the national park system).

- The right to own fully automatic military weapons and drive around with them is restricted by liberals.

All of your examples show responsible liberals and childish whining by you. There are always examples where any government makes mistakes. You pick weak anecdotes.

There was a resistance to seat belts being mandatory in cars in this country, too. Are you still upset about that as well?

 

[Craig234]

I've called my Congressman, though he's already on record against amnesty (Pete Stark is great). Check eff.org for their statement of opposition and a link to contact your representative.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

It has been brought to my attention that a new bill will be voted on this Friday June 19th granting retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies involved in President Bush's potentially illegal wiretapping program. I am writing you to request that you vote no on this bill. It is my belief that this is a matter for the courts to decide, not congress. In voting yes, you will be setting a precedent that the legislative branch of our government has judicial authority eliminating one of the most important checks and balances our forefathers wrote into our government. It may very well be determined later that the President was well within his rights to authorize spying on the American Population. If so, then the telecommunications companies have no reason for concern. If however, it is later determined that The President was not acting lawfully, then the companies who facilitated his actions should be held accountable as well. Please, I beg of you as a concerned American Citizen, vote no to retroactive immunity for these companies and send a message to the corporate world that they will be held accountable if they break the law.

I sent this to my Representative and I urge everyone here who finds this as offensive as I do to send something similar to their representative as well.

And to those who support this, can you explain in any way shape or form if this action was warranted and legal and right and necessary and whatever wonderful fluffy adjective you can come up with, why is it wrong to leave it to the courts to rule on it? Isn't that the whole point of having the court system? Do you seriously support the government breaking it's own laws at whim for anything they deem necessary? Have you ever studied The Constitution and The Bill of Rights and the reasoning behind them?

 

[Lemon law]

How about someone right to get on a plane if they happen to be named Robert Johnson?

How about our right to see our government does not waste money, because that all this crapola is, a giant waste of money.

Silly rabbits, terrorists do not communicate by phone or by means that can be intercepted, they use human couriers and double blind contacts.

To a certain extent, various Presidents have violated the law for reasons of national security and bi passed FISA.

But in the case of Bill Clinton, these were rare cases he personally supervised, and the GWB has delegated it to others and made it into a routine use practice.

And because terrorists don't communicate by intercept able means, we surrender our liberties for no gain and huge governmental waste of man power.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

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.

So you are saying that you suppoort people breaking the law for profit, and getting away with it? Because the telco's got paid lots of money to do these things, they didn't do it for free.

So yes/no....is it OK for corporations to knowingly and willing break the law? That's what they did.

I can't wait until a police officer comes to you, gives you a video camera and tells you to sneak into the womens locker room to videotape a "suspect" for them. I'm sure you will do it, no questions asked, since it was a cop, right? Have fun in jail, and good luck with using the excuse that the cop said to do it.

That's about the same level of illegality that Bush used with the telco's when we wanted all the information.

And yes, I'd expect any corporation to refuse a request if illegal. The real question, why don't you expect that? More of the "I'm afraid", go ahead and kil anyone you want, break an law you want, but tell me I'm safe?

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: brencat
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.

Right, you really buy into that neocon BS about all the people at gitmo are "terrorists" huh?

None of them could be innocent, right? We have rights and laws in this country to protect the innocent. Why are you willing to throw that away, just for your peace of mind? Better to kill thousands of innocent so we don't let one guilty go free, huh?

When did "terrorist" = "proved with real evidence in a court of law" (or anywhere, for that matter) The people you call terrorists are in a lot of cases innocent people that were kidnapped and tortured, based on hearsay, just like in the old USSR days. All it takes is an anonymous tip from someone that doesn't like you, and bam, you are off to a fun filled all-expenses paid vacation to gitmo, where you get to have free torture sessions for as long as the US wants to hold you.

To proof, no evidence, nothing...sound like the KGB to you? Where is the proof?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

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.

So you are saying that you suppoort people breaking the law for profit, and getting away with it? Because the telco's got paid lots of money to do these things, they didn't do it for free.

So yes/no....is it OK for corporations to knowingly and willing break the law? That's what they did.

I can't wait until a police officer comes to you, gives you a video camera and tells you to sneak into the womens locker room to videotape a "suspect" for them. I'm sure you will do it, no questions asked, since it was a cop, right? Have fun in jail, and good luck with using the excuse that the cop said to do it.

That's about the same level of illegality that Bush used with the telco's when we wanted all the information.

And yes, I'd expect any corporation to refuse a request if illegal. The real question, why don't you expect that? More of the "I'm afraid", go ahead and kil anyone you want, break an law you want, but tell me I'm safe?

Didn't you get the memo? It's okay to break the law and violate the Constitution so long as you're doing it against bad people.