Obama’s Message of Hope… for the Terrorists
February 13th, 2008 at 01:27pm Matt Margolis
His speeches may invoke warm fuzzy feelings for his supporters, but his votes give warm fuzzy feelings to terrorists.
Now and then sanity prevails, even in Washington. So it did yesterday as the Senate passed a warrantless wiretap bill for overseas terrorists while killing most of the Lilliputian attempts to tie down our war fighters.
“We lost every single battle we had on this bill,” conceded Chris Dodd, which ought to tell the Connecticut Senator something about the logic of what he was proposing. His own amendment — to deny immunity from lawsuits to telecom companies that cooperated with the government after 9/11 — didn’t even get a third of the Senate. It lost 67-31, though notably among the 31 was possible Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama. (Hillary Clinton was absent, while John McCain voted in favor.)
It says something about his national security world view, or his callowness, that Mr. Obama would vote to punish private companies that even the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee said had “acted in good faith.” Had Senator Obama prevailed, a President Obama might well have been told “no way” when he asked private Americans to help his Administration fight terrorists. Mr. Obama also voted against the overall bill, putting him in MoveOn.org territory.
It says a lot when you vote in favor of trial lawyers over saving the lives of Americans. And it says nothing good.
Entry Filed under: Democrats
72 Comments
1. bozo the neoclown | February 13th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Essentially, you’re calling EVERYONE who had their phone bills handed over to the government without a warrant a terrorist. Wow, the delusion and paranoia of waaappphhhhpublicans is teetering on “One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest” scary.
By the way, answer me this… why ask for immunity in the first place if they weren’t breaking the LAW?
2. coulterfan | February 13th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
It used to be that so-called Conservatives wanted the government out of their lives.
Now, they want the Government to let phone companies monitor their phone calls without a warrant and not be held accountable for it!
More evidence of the ‘Big Government Conservatives’!
3. Darva Conger | February 13th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
It is always strange for me to see how much Conservatives hate our beloved Constitution and how quickly they wish to over-ride it without an Amendment.
4. coulterfan | February 13th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
One more thing. . .
Say Hillary Clinton does pull this thing off and becomes President. . .
Is everyone here okay with giving her the power to wiretap our phone calls/email messages without a warrant??? And with giving the companies which cooperate with her in doing so complete immunity?
5. Almiranta | February 13th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
When I run out of ways to define the bizarre irrationality of the truly rabid radical Left, someone like bozo steps in to do it for me.
In a mere six lines, he covers the inabilty of the radical Left to process information: “..Essentially, you’re calling EVERYONE who had their phone bills handed over to the government without a warrant a terrorist. ……”
he indulges in some truly gratifyfing temper tantrum name-calling: “Wow, the delusion and paranoia of waaappphhhhpublicans ….”
and hysterical hyperoble: “…is teetering on “One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest” scary….”
And, as a grand finale, his total (yet unashamed) ignorance of the law..”… why ask for immunity in the first place if they weren’t breaking the LAW?”
But as he does say “answer me this…” I will do so. LawSUITS, you ignoramus. CIVIL ACTIONS. OK, little words, short sentences. After all, this is the self-identified bozo here.
A man could sue a company to try to get money from it. He could claim he was hurt by what the company did. A company doing what its government asked it to do could face high costs to defend a frivolous lawsuit.
Sorry- had to use some polysyballic words here, even trying to dumb it down to bozo’s level.
6. Almiranta | February 13th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
coulter/Conger” See above, re: inability to process information.
OVERSEAS TERRORISTS. Each of these words, while having more than one syllable and therefore possibly being beyond your abilities of comprehension, also has a definition. Check it out.
As for Darva, I’ll bet that when she’s not whining about how much those dratted Conservatives hate our “beloved Constitution” she is rooting for some nice Liberal judges and justices who can overturn it, and legislation, at will. Find THAT ability in the Constitution, Darva.
And check out the 2nd and 10th Amendments while you’re at it—both of which are the antithesis of what you Libs are trying to achieve.
Hypocrites……………..
7. Bigfoot | February 13th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Excuse me, but does anyone see the word “overseas” in this quote:
Now and then sanity prevails, even in Washington. So it did yesterday as the Senate passed a warrantless wiretap bill for overseas terrorists while killing most of the Lilliputian attempts to tie down our war fighters.
Wiretapping terrorists overseas is monitoring our phone calls?
You see, lefties, we on the right, while often critical of government power, still believe that government has some legitimate functions, such as defending us from foreign enemies who would kill us just because we don’t share their religion.
As for over-riding our constitution without amending it, the left, with its attempt to criminalize “hate speech”, its reading of “people” as meaning “the state” in the second amendment”, its promotion of racial preferences instead of EQUAL protection, etc., needs to take a very hard look at themselves before pointing fingers at Republicans.
8. Almiranta | February 13th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Coulterfan emotes: “Is everyone here okay with giving her (Hillary) the power to wiretap our phone calls/email messages without a warrant??? ”
Nope. And none of us was in favor of allowing her to use her position as Co-President to illegally acquire FBI information on political enemies, either.
But she did.
You Lemming Lefties have to take a breath and think this through: Having had an administration which initiated Echelon (the program that lets us eavesdrop on overseas terrorists) and which also abused its powers so dramatically in its pursuit of anything it could possibly use against its political enemies, and being able to look ahead to the possiblity of a reincarnation of that same administration, there has been a lot of concern about how to legally limit information-gathering to specific anti-terrorist areas.
In spite of what your handlers have been telling you, every single step of every single act has been thoroughly vetted by judges, legal and constitutional authorities, and when necessary voted on by Congress. The simple fact that not ever single person in the country has agreed with the conclusions, verdicts, decsions, and acts taken is not proof they were wrong, or illegal, or immoral. You lemmings just glom onto those dissenting opinions, give them far more weight than they objectively deserve, and trot them out to support your rabid Leftism and its attendant loathing of anything even vaguely Right.
(Yes, we have noted that BDS has expanded to include, in its mindless vitriol, any degree of conservatism. It’s a movement which can be accurately summed up in those two words: Mindless and Vitriol.)
9. bozo the neoclown | February 13th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Roflmao… typical neoclown spin…protect the corporation from lawsuits AFTER they break the law. Way to go almi
10. SteaM | February 13th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Bigfoot,
The reality is this:
That someone in the United States on the other end of that communication might just be talking to a family member in Iraq who happens to have been handed the unfortunate case of mistaken identity thus deemed a suspected terrorist.
I mean seriously. This is dangerous stuff that our government is doing in the name of security. Remove cilil liberties and privacy in the name of security and you get some scary possiblities. Let’s not even open that can of worms… well, except it’s open and needs to be closed. Let’s hope Obama can do that.
11. phil | February 13th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Matt,
Good news! Your suggestion that Obama is on the side of the terrorists has made you a finalist (along with Mitt Romney for his suggestion that he is getting out of the race in order that the terrorists won’t win) for the Douchebag of the Year award. Congratulations!
12. LiberalMind | February 13th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
It’s amazing how many people and some Democrats will hand over their civil rights and grant the government more power when the Republicans go “boo.”
Republicans are using this whole farcical “war on terror” as a means to consolidate power and curtail the freedom and privacy of Americans.
Too bad they so easily grant permission. Shameful
13. Canadian Observer | February 13th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Almiranta
Since you are unable or unwilling to rein in your arrogrance (shades of GWB) in response to legitimate questions raised by other posters, why should we give any credence whatsoever to the obnoxious and scolding lectures you insist on posting?
Do you have the capability at all of offering a reasoned response with perhaps just a wee bit of humility?
14. Concerned Citizen | February 13th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Wow. What is amazing is how totally uninformed some of you are. Do you know what the phone companies did for the federal government? Allow me to enlighten you and explain why it was not warrantless wiretapping in the first place.
The requested phone records form all the major telecom companies. Most of them complied and provided log records containing nothing but the calling number, the number called, time and date and duration.
These are records of calls made on their networks and thus are the sole property of the companies themselves. You do not own your phone records and there can be no expectation of privacy for information such as this since the phone companies have the sole right to use statistical information collected about their networks in whatever manner they see fit.
No content of the message or communication was requested or include in the documents provided to the federal government. The government then used a algorythmic filtering software to look for call to and from known terrorist phone numbers. This practice and process is perfectly legal and has been used by cilivan law enforcement for years, just never on this massive of a scale.
If numbers were found to be associated with known terrorist numbers then a warrant was issued under the FISA rules for a wire tap.
Also, something you should note: You are NOT in ANY WAY garunteed the right to privacy when placing international calls, period. Your rights to privacy are limited to the domestic borders of the Unites States and her territories. Calls to foriegn nationals fall under the pervue of national security and you are not given any expectation or privacy in those instances. According to law, no warrant is needed to monitor a call originating in this country and contacting someone in Saudia Arabia, or in the reverse.
This protection was needed to exempt these companies from frivilous prosecution and lawsuit from people who have no legal understanding of what occurred such as some on this board. The companies acted in good faith and absolutely within the law in providing the federal government with these records. Again, records which they may do with as they please because they own them and you do not.
15. Brian (Boston) | February 13th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
I wonder how many terror alerts or warnings are announced right before the election? The DHS announced yesterday that female suicide bombers were going to blow up the US. Gee, is it another coincidence that the Senate was voting on the FISA bill?
The fear mongering has to stop. We do face dangers and we must address them, but using government agencies for political gain is wrong.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330415,00.html
16. Brian (Boston) | February 13th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Concerned Citizen, I would like to believe that was what the government was doing, but I am skeptical of the government. How did you come by this information?
17. Concerned Citizen | February 13th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
May I also remind everyone here that the ECHELON program was in place for years and actually monitored the content of messages and communications without a warrant for any of it. No one is trying to sue the multiple civilian companies that participated in and assisted the government in the developmet of ECHELON… Why not? Because the Presidential Order that created the ECHELON program exempted all civilian companies that participated in its development and operation from civil and criminal reprisals.
Duh!
18. Concerned Citizen | February 13th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
It was plainly published when the issue broke…
USA Today, 5/10/2006
NSA has massive database of Americans’ phone calls
(paragraph 2)…
“This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.
There are a ton of article out there stating the exact same thing and this testimony was given before the Senate Intelligence Committee. It is a matter of public record.
19. Sunny | February 13th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Matt, you are becoming such a drama queen with your interpertations of others beliefs and actions. Considering that Barack Obama taught Constitutional Law I suspect that he was somewhat concerned about the Constitution of the US rather than giving warm fuzzy feeling to the emeny, although that is what you are hoping is his reasoning for voting aginst those little, week, legally unrepresented ole guys from AT&T. If you believe that our Constitution cannot stand up to obeying the laws of this country, then maybe you should be afraid. Personally, I believe that Mr. Obama would take the legal path should he need to do something like this during his presidency. Further, George Bush is the one who put the telecommunication industry in jepordy with his illegal wiretaps. Too bad they didn’t have the intestional fortitude to stand up to him and tell him to get a warrant first. Hard to feel too sorry for them.
20. Herkimer X. Arbuthnot | February 13th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
It’s perfectly understandable why the left has become apoplectic here; the issue is immunity from lawsuits which is a civil issue, and the left, in a losing effort rally to the break the law meme.
Much as Obama must have failed 6th grade civics, I fear the resident trolls did as well. Obama has promised “pay raises for teachers” when he becomes president, and the unsophisticated hereabouts claim civil lawsuits are brought about by violation of “law”. Sadly, the least sophisticated of the bunch, our neighbor to the north doesn’t see the flaw in this logic and challenges to answer the claim. There is a reason for his ignorance, there’s no excuse for the Americans that make the same mistake; you people should know better.
I also find it amusing that this blurring between legal responsibility and civil action is interpreted as an attack on the Constitution; again, 6th grade civics; in the other legal systems around the world a plaintiff may collect from a defendant in a criminal action, but not in the American system; in our criminal justice system the plaintiff is the People and not an individual or group. To allow this distinction to become moot would be to dismantle one of the basic tenants of our system; the government cannot act on behalf of a favored group to financial benefit of that person or group, but must instead allow each to have equal weight in civil actions.
The Government isn’t supposed to care who wins civil actions unless the government has a vested interest in the outcome. If the government has an interest in the outcome of a civil action, remembering that a civil action means monetary reward to the victor, I would be especially suspicious of the implications that would have.
21. Concerned Citizen | February 13th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Sunny, I would challenge you to provide examples of the illegality of monitoring international calls or doing massive data mining on records provided by the telecom industry.
I would like the laws that make such activity illegal if you would be so kind.
22. Herkimer X. Arbuthnot | February 13th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
I would also like evidence that a Con Law professor is concerned with keeping the Constitution sacrosanct. Can you provide any writings from Obama on this subject?
He was Harvard Law Review; finding his opinions should be no problem, right?
23. Sunny | February 13th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Herk, if the practice of wiretapping was legal, why did the Senate bother to take a vote on making changes? Why do the telecommunication companies need immunity if what they are doing is perfectly legal? Just wondering. I know our representatives in congress waste a lot time, but this would have been truly stupid if a legitimate issue did not exist as to the legality of wiretapping. As to providing evidence that Obama was/n’t concerned with keeping the Consitituion sacroscanct, as I stated above, that is mere specuation on my part. If you really want to know why he voted as he did, I suggest that you visit Senator Barack’s official web site and find out what his reasoning was to vote anti.
24. Concerned Citizen | February 13th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Because, Sunny, in this country you do not have to commit a crime to be charged with it and you can sue anyone for practically anything.
Do you know how badly a major criminal or massive civil action against all the major telecom companies would harm this nation? How long would such a case take? How would it disrupt the telecom industry? How much of our surveilence methods would be exposed to our enemies? What if you got a jury who decided to convict a major telecom company or award a massive civil suit (which can happen even if you are found innocent of criminal activity)?
No laws were broken. That doesn’t stop federal prosecuter from disrupting everything trying to find something to charge or from civilians suing companies. Like I said, the companies under Echelon were protect in such a way as well, and that program was an invasive content based monitoring net.
25. Dennis | February 13th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Deleted - mindless insults.
26. Concerned Citizen | February 13th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Dennis,
Once again you spout ideology and fail to provide factual evidence. Define for all the ‘gallery of zealots’ here the illegality of a massive data mining operation or of monitoring communication to and from foriegn sources.
If you lack the intellect or ability to do so, then kindly refrain from showing your ignorace by personally attacking those who disagree with you. All it does is show ineptitude.
27. Herkimer X. Arbuthnot | February 13th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Sunny,
Re-read the statement at the top of the page; to deny immunity from lawsuits to telecom companies that cooperated with the government after 9/11. (Emphasis added) Civil action requires a tort (civil wrong not arising out of a contract or statute), a contractual dispute or an actionable claim arising out of a statutory violation (criminal action); the government hasn’t proceeded in criminal investigations, that leaves a suit based on a tort or a contract dispute. No laws need be broken for a lawsuit to proceed.
Your thesis that a Con Law teacher wouldn’t vote in opposition to the intent of the constitution indicates your lack of knowledge of Law School (and teachers in general). Aside from the fact that I’ve already stated, and Congress agreed that the issue of granting immunity from civil lawsuits for compliance with governmental requests is statutory not Constitutional.
28. coulterfan | February 13th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Deleted - off topic
29. Sunny | February 13th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
If you lack the intellect or ability to do so, then kindly refrain from showing your ignorace by personally attacking those who disagree with you. All it does is show ineptitude.
Concerned Citizen
Do you mean the personal attacks such as Mark and Matt do just about every time they write a blog about a Democrat? Is that the kind of personal attacks you are referring to, or is it just attacks against one who holds your position that should cease? There appears to be a great deal of “lack of intellect” at times on this blog, and sorry to say, you are among those lacking it at times.
30. Sunny | February 13th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Your thesis that a Con Law teacher wouldn’t vote in opposition to the intent of the constitution indicates your lack of knowledge of Law School - Herk
Really??? - that shows how much you know -.
31. Tractatus | February 13th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Matt, you are becoming such a drama queen with your interpretations of others beliefs and actions.
“Becoming?”
At least his streak of completely missing the point and simply mouthing GOP talking points continues unabated — and with no end in sight.
32. SteaM | February 13th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
ding ding!
It’s illegal. That’s why they have to put in an immunity.
So much for a laws. We don’t need no stinking laws!
33. Diana Powe | February 13th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Deleted - off topic; the topic is Obama and how he’ll deal with terrorism, not how someone else might have dealt with it in the past.
34. Dennis | February 13th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Sorry, Concerned Citizen - it doesn’t work on this blog unless you’re on the house team. Last night I posted an irrefutable string of documentations for my argument on another thread, which were promptly deleted for being “off topic.” It was fundamentally dishonest, and a slap in the face to any reader who may have wanted to examine both sides of the argument.
To deny legal redress for Constitutional irregularites and violations on the part of the Bush admnistration is part of a continuum, of which this blog is a sample. This is the modus operandi of the Right. Censor, delete, handpick your audience, smash-mouth your opponents. It works on Capitol Hill, it works right here - Messrs. Margolis and Noonan are apt students of their ideological mentors.
35. SteaM | February 13th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
I agree Diana… it’s illegal and Bush actually did lie about it too.
No wonder people want to impeach.
36. Diana Powe | February 13th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Of course, for the Almirantas of the world, the operative word is “authorities”. As long as the “authorities” inform her that they are Good and only have the Best and Most Noble Intentions then she can close her eyes and blindly trust that Lord Acton was a fool when he wrote, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Obviously, Lord Acton never met President George W. Bush, right, Almiranta? If he had, Lord Acton would know that he was wrong and that all the things he thought he knew about human history were mistaken.
37. Fmr Marine | February 13th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Sun
You mean the AFFIRMATIVE action law school prof?
The junior senator with 2 years experience?
RIIIIIIGGGGGGGHHHHHTTTT !
So according to some here ….the govt may be reading these posts??????? NOOOOOOO my privacy!!!!!
WHO CARES if the govt listens to my OVERSEAS calls to aunt mary?
maybe only CAIR and muckhammad.
Im actually more concerned with… “hate laws”
drunk driving checkpoints, 2nd amendment prohibitions, abortion, perverts rights elevated to that of roman citizens (above all others) and many liberal pushed agendas than some terrorist talking and planning another attack.
38. Concerned Citizen | February 13th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Once again the actions taken by the telecom industry were in NO WAY illegal and have been practiced by law enforcement for decades. Pulling phone records and searching for patterns in those records is common practice.
On the matter of the government having this kind of information… Do you even KNOW what Echelon was? They have had much, much more than this kind of information for years. Echelon monitored the CONTENT of messages and flagged communications for further reviwe based on key word searches in electronic and spoken communication. All of it done without warrants and this was a purely domesticly targeted program.
The telecom companies acted completely within the law and the administration had every right to ask for this data. Since the information was privately owned statistical data, the companies could have refused to release the information with out a warrant, but they chose to cooperate instead.
Why not this outrage over the massively intrusive Echelon monitoring program?
Why not the calls for a redress of the violations it incurred?
Why not calls for criminal charges against those involved in it?
Why such a shallow double standard?
39. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, DSVJ | February 13th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
The trial lawyers happen to be right on this one.
40. Diana Powe | February 13th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Concerned Citizen,
First and foremost, any comments you make about the surveillance activities of the Executive Branch are hampered by the fact that no one outside the Executive Branch knows very much about what’s being done. The so-called Terrorist Surveilllance Program is only a single program whose existence, but not substance, has been exposed. However, in regards to call records, capturing those records requires the use of a pen register or trap and trace device and (surprise!) they require a court order under Title 18 of the U.S.C.
This has been established law for many years.
41. Diana Powe | February 13th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
The blunt fact is that every vote in the Senate yesterday in favor of providing unchecked surveillance powers to the Executive Branch and retroactively immunizing felonies committed by the telecommunication companies helped ensure that the 19 brutal killers who took the lives of nearly 4,000 innocents on 09/11/01 did not die in vain. Even in death they were able to cow the Senate into voting away some of the freedoms those men supposedly hated. Yesterday was another black day for this great nation.
42. Diana Powe | February 13th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
As accurately predicted, all comments failing to toe the Party line with sufficient fealty are in the process of being deleted.
43. bongoman | February 13th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
38. Concerned Citizen:
Are you kidding?
The telecoms violated multiple clear, long-standing laws that make it illegal to do exactly what they did: namely, allow government spying on Americans and access to their customer data without judicial warrants.
Section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934 provides that “[e]very telecommunications carrier has a duty to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of . . . customers.” 18 U.S.C. 2511 makes warrantless eavesdropping a felony; 18 U.S.C. 2702 requires that any “entity providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of a communication” without a court order; 47 U.S.C. 605 states that “no person receiving, assisting in receiving, transmitting, or assisting in transmitting, any interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning thereof, except through authorized channels of transmission or reception”; and 18 U.S.C. 2520 provides for civil damages for any violations.
There is simply no argument that what the telecoms did was legal - they violated multiple federal laws.
The issue is very simple.
44. Fmr Marine | February 13th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
so simple BONGman?
Simple!
YOU can… prosecute them, sue them, or accept that the govt and the courts, have ruled it to be legal.
Or
post your “its illegal” drivel here, and NOBODY cares how you feel.
now explain to us all about the legality of “hate crime laws”
45. bongoman | February 13th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
And Concerned Citizen, Echelon complied with FISA. Before any conversations of U.S. persons were targeted, a FISA warrant was obtained.
46. bongoman | February 13th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Fmr Marine, I was simply responding to Concerned Citizen who stated that what the telecoms did was legal.
It was not legal.
47. Herkimer X. Arbuthnot | February 13th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Before any conversations of U.S. persons were targeted, a FISA warrant was obtained.
Tell that to Aldrich Aimes.
Illegal? Read Article II.
If your memory is hazy, congress already addressed the subject;
48. Percy Beezer | February 13th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
“Echelon complied with FISA.”
Since Echelon predates FISA by a few decades, and since it involves foreign governments not bound to US law you’re talking through your hat (lie).
49. Matt Margolis | February 13th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Diana Powe,
I am sick of you accusing us of censoring. Open your eyes. If you think that the only comments published here toe the Republican Party line then you are either blind or a liar. Quite honestly I an beyond tired of such accusations, considering how many nonsensical liberal comments have been consistently remained intact in the comment threads.
If you cannot appreciate the freedom you have in this forum then by all means go elsewhere.
50. bongoman | February 13th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
48. Percy Beezer:
I was referencing George Tenet, when he testified before Congress on 4/12/00:
51. bongoman | February 13th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
47. Herkimer X. Arbuthnot:
The President has no greater power to authorize others to break the law than he does to break the law himself. And Article II imposes the opposite obligation: “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
Lawbreaking is still illegal even if George Bush says it should be done.
52. Mind Numbed Robot | February 13th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Your thesis that a Con Law teacher wouldn’t vote in opposition to the intent of the constitution indicates your lack of knowledge of Law School - Herk
Really??? - that shows how much you know -.Sunny (Neeeneeer neeener neeener)
Herk gives several posts elucidating his position and this is all you’ve got in reply????
Give it up, you are out of your league and looking more foolish than you normally do.
53. plainjane | February 13th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Once again the actions taken by the telecom industry were in NO WAY illegal 38. Concerned Citizen | February 13th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Then what is all the whining about immunity from the wingnuts. Please by all means make your calls to Limbaugh and Hannity to say how foolish they are for demanding the immunity portion be dropped. According to Cit there is nothing to worry about, the telecoms don’t need immunity they did nothing illegal.
Sorry Cit this administration has trampled your constitutional rights. Lawyers within the administration and telcoms know the importants of immunity or they would not have placed it in the bill.
54. SteaM | February 13th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Deleted - off topic
55. hermie | February 13th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
This was immunity regarding CIVIL actions, not CRIMINAL. That means lawsuits filed by individuals or groups.
In our courts you can sue just about anybody for anything, as long as you have the time and the attorneys who will work the hours. You can spill coffee on yourself and take the restaurant to court. You can sue your neighbor because his kids make too much noise when they play hoops in the backyard.
Telecom companies who are complying with government requests in good faith, should not be penalized by being dragged through civil courts.
56. Faceplant | February 13th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
“Before any conversations of U.S. persons were targeted, a FISA warrant was obtained.
Tell that to Aldrich Aimes.”
The Clinton administration exploited a loophole in the law when they searched Aimes residence. There was no provision in FISA that covered physical searches in 1993. The law was amended in 1995 to cover physical searches.
The difference here is that the Clinton administration was arguing that the President had the right to order warrantless physical searches in the the absense of a congressional statute expressely forbidding them. The Bush administration is arguing that Bush can conduct warrantless searches of any kind, regardless of congressional statutes. The Bush administration claims they don’t have to follow laws passed by congress. That they are somehow exempt. The Clinton administration never claimed this.
“If your memory is hazy, congress already addressed the subject;”
That quote above is actually from a Supreme court case, so I’m not sure what Congress has to do with it. But while we are at it, why don’t we look at who else has adressed the subject.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/18/washington/18nsa.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
“A federal judge ruled yesterday that the National Security Agency’s program to wiretap the international communications of some Americans without a court warrant violated the Constitution, and she ordered it shut down.”
Spin it anyway you want. While it is in the appeals process a Federal Judge has already ruled this program illegal. And nothing you say changes that.
57. Faceplant | February 13th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
“Telecom companies who are complying with government requests in good faith, should not be penalized by being dragged through civil courts.”
First of all why not? If you broke a law, then you most certainly deserve to be dragged through any applicable court. Second of all there was nothing to comply with, as the last time I checked, the President didn’t have the right to order private citizens to break the law.
58. Diana Powe | February 13th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
hermie,
Tell us all about the “good faith” of the telecommunication companies. How about shutting down wiretapping operations which are supposedly SO VITAL TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY because the FBI didn’t pay the bill on time? Is that the kind of good faith that you’re talking about?
It’s really quite touching to see what Patriotic Corporate Citizens ™ they are.
59. phnx | February 13th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
” If you broke a law, then you most certainly deserve to be dragged through any applicable court.” Faceplant
And if you are not guilty????
How about a compromise, change the laws so that the a losing plaintiff pay the attorney fees of the victorious defendant…like in England. That would stop a lot of the frivilous lawsuits.
OBTW: Which party do you think is against this idea?
60. Diana Powe | February 14th, 2008 at 12:05 am
Translation: A company committing felonies in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act when the Executive Branch asked it to commit those felonies could face the costs of defending a lawsuit filed in lieu of enforcement of United States law by that same Executive Branch which is a party to the offenses.
61. Concerned Citizen | February 14th, 2008 at 4:12 am
Bongoman,
You cited the following:
Section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934 provides that “[e]very telecommunications carrier has a duty to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of . . . customers.”
The courts have ruled in multiple domedtic ciminal cases that a person has no resonable expectation of privacy when it pertaind to basic phone recods and they are admissible in court as evidence without a warrant. The records were statistical and contained no direct information other than originating number, destination number, date, time and duration.
18 U.S.C. 2511 makes warrantless eavesdropping a felony;
There was no evesdropping. They were data files.
18 U.S.C. 2702 requires that any “entity providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of a communication” without a court order;
They in no way divuldged the content of any communication nor would they have been able to do so since these were historic transactional records only. Suprisingly, the telecom companies to not record and store your phone conversations, nor do they possess the massive capacity it would require to do so.
47 U.S.C. 605 states that “no person receiving, assisting in receiving, transmitting, or assisting in transmitting, any interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning thereof, except through authorized channels of transmission or reception”;
This simply does not apply to the data mining, but according to U.S.C 18, Part 1, Chapter 119, § 2511:
(ii) Notwithstanding any other law, providers of wire or electronic communication service, their officers, employees, and agents, landlords, custodians, or other persons, are authorized to provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to persons authorized by law to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications or to conduct electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
Seeing as how the FISA of 1978 allows for use of collected information against a person of the United States under US Code, Title 50, Chapter 36, Subsection1, § 1806 pursuant to Section 101 of said act. It is allowable for information to be collected on an person of the United States without a warrant provided said person was not the target of the intercept. A warrant must be obtain before the information may be used in court to verify the legality of the intercept. No persons of the United States were targets of the intercepts. The foriegn sources were the intended stated targets in the Attorney General’s prepared statments submitted to the FISA court after the intercepts took place. This is perfectly legal under the FISA legislation.
Furthermore, U.S.C 18, Part 1, Chapter 119, § 2511 gives the Attorney General the right to request the release of such information.
4) With respect to electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection, the Attorney General may direct a specified communication common carrier to—
(A) furnish all information, facilities, or technical assistance necessary to accomplish the electronic surveillance in such a manner as will protect its secrecy and produce a minimum of interference with the services that such carrier is providing its customers; and
(B) maintain under security procedures approved by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence any records concerning the surveillance or the aid furnished which such carrier wishes to retain.
18 U.S.C. 2520 provides for civil damages for any violations
No violation of the US Code pertaining to the collection of the foreign intelligence were violated. The targets of the international intercepts were not US Citizens and therefore perfectly legal under United States law. Warrants were obtained in accordance to the FISA statuates after the intercepts had been made, otherwise they would not have been admissible in court and any evidence they provided would have been thrown out.
As for Echelon… You cannot seriously argue that the government filtering for calling patterns and wire tapping communications to foreign sources suspected of supporting terrorism is not acceptable, but sorting through millions of e-mails a day and monitoring the content of completely domestic phone converstations was acceptable. Echelon was a flagrant violation of the FISA act of 1978 and of USC 18, Chapters 119 and 121. In no way did if fall under Title 50 since we were not even in a defacto state of war with ANYONE when Echelon was operating.
The hypocracy here is amazing.
62. congressive | February 14th, 2008 at 4:32 am
Cool! It would then seem that no laws were broken, so no immunity is needed.
The simple fact that only SOME telcoms did this, and did it for money, means it was not a national security issue. The other fact that all the offenders stopped cooperating when the money stopped affirms this. “Acting in good faith” for big government bucks, but then endangering national security when the checks ran out… priceless.
63. phnx | February 14th, 2008 at 5:25 am
Congressive,
After all of the explanation of the difference between criminal and civil actions you still don’t understand. Why are we not surprised.
64. Christian Wright | February 14th, 2008 at 7:37 am
Without FISA review, we don’t know if he is spying on “overseas terrorist” or is pulling a J. Edgar Hoover by spying on outspoken critics of his administration and policies.
The man you made the movie, “Bush’s Brain” was put on the No Fly List out of spite. If they are capable of that, what are they not capable of?
65. Christian Wright | February 14th, 2008 at 7:42 am
Talk about abuse of power. Here is an example why Bush cannot be trusted with the power to wiretap without independent supervision.
James Moore is an Emmy-winning former television news correspondent and the co-author of the bestselling, Bush’s Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential. He has been writing and reporting from Texas for the past 25 years on the rise of Rove and Bush and has traveled extensively on every presidential campaign since 1976.
This author was placed on the no fly list. Here is his story
“I made it a point to arrive very early at the airport. My reservation was confirmed before I left home. I went to the electronic kiosk and punched in my confirmation number to print out my boarding pass and luggage tags. Another error message appeared, “Please see agent.”
I did. She took my Texas driver’s license and punched in the relevant information to her computer system.
“I’m sorry, sir,” she said. “There seems to be a problem. You’ve been placed on the No Fly Watch List.”
“Excuse me?”
“I’m afraid there isn’t much more that I can tell you,” she explained. “It’s just the list that’s maintained by TSA to check for people who might have terrorist connections.”
“You’re serious?”
“I’m afraid so, sir. Here’s an 800 number in Washington. You need to call them before I can clear you for the flight.”
Exasperated, I dialed the number from my cell, determined to clear up what I was sure was a clerical error. The woman who answered offered me no more information than the ticket agent.
“Mam, I’d like to know how I got on the No Fly Watch List.”
“I’m not really authorized to tell you that, sir,” she explained after taking down my social security and Texas driver’s license numbers.
“What can you tell me?”
“All I can tell you is that there is something in your background that in some way is similar to someone they are looking for.”
“Well, let me get this straight then,” I said. “Our government is looking for a guy who may have a mundane Anglo name, who pays tens of thousands of dollars every year in taxes, has never been arrested or even late on a credit card payment, is more uninteresting than a Tupperware party, and cries after the first two notes of the national anthem? We need to find this guy. He sounds dangerous to me.”
“I’m sorry, sir, I’ve already told you everything I can.”
“Oh, wait,” I said. “One last thing: this guy they are looking for? Did he write books critical of the Bush administration, too?”
I have been on the No Fly Watch List for a year. I will never be told the official reason. No one ever is. You cannot sue to get the information. Nothing I have done has moved me any closer to getting off the list. There were 35,000 Americans in that database last year. According to a European government that screens hundreds of thousands of American travelers every year, the list they have been given to work from has since grown to 80,000.”
66. plainjane | February 14th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Christian Wright | February 14th, 2008 at 7:42 am
The solution: 1/20/09. “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
67. Almiranta | February 14th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
This has been one of the more fascinating threads.
On one hand, we have intelligent, competent, knowledgeable posters explaining the law in great detail, going through the facts of data mining, providing law and insight and actual information.
On the other hand, we have—Diana the Red. (Who, just to remain totally consistent, totally fabricated yet another claim about me: “Of course, for the Almirantas of the world, the operative word is “authorities”. blah blah blah blah. ) But as usual, Diana is on the opposite side of the facts, as well as of truth and fairness and all that other stuff that just gets in the way of Leftist cant.
It is fascinating to see fact after fact simply ignored, based on the ardent desire to believe what they want to believe.
I can’t think of a thread which has so clearly illustrated the blindness, the fanaticism, of the dedicated True Believer.
Thanks, CC and Herk. Please stop by again, and often.
And, just curious, why is it that neither of you mentioned that Echelon was brought into play during the Clinton Adminstration?
On the other hand, it is very reassuring to learn, from the Usual Suspects, that one cannot be sued if one is not guilty of something. Guess I was hallucinating the lawsuit filed against me for breach of contract, when there was no contract. (In that case, it was clearly an effort to extort money. I said if they would settle for $50,000, and I was guaranteed to win in court because THERE WAS NO CONTRACT, then I would buy my lawyer a nice new Mercedes because there was no way in hell that crook (the plaintiff) would ever get a dime out of me. Halfway through his deposition he pulled a Queeg on us, nearly passed out, started to mumble, contradicted himself at every turn, and never showed up for another depo or legal proceeding. He finally begged me to let him drop the case. Me? Totally innocent, out about $25,000 and more time and energy than I can count. Too bad none of us knew that factoid of the rabid Left—”You can’t sue someone if he hasn’t done anything wrong”. It would have saved me a lot of money and aggravation.)
I can’t ever tell if they are naive, just plain dumb, dedicated to ignorance as a basic tenet of their belief system, or —I keep coming back to just plain dumb.
68. Almiranta | February 14th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
So, Diana, regarding Rant # 58, what are you whining about this time? Is your blind faith in the efficiacy of bureaucracy dinged, to learn that a huge department like the FBI fumbled a bill?
You did note the truly important part of your post, didn’t you?
“……intercept information
required by a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) order …”
Get that? It was REQUIRED BY A FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT ORDER”
Legal…………………………..
69. SteaM | February 14th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Deleted - off topic report from 2006; the issue here is Obama, not old news stories…
70. Diana Powe | February 14th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Almiranta,
Comment # 58 seemed pretty plain to me. The President and those who want to provide an unprecedented retroactive immunity to the telecommunication companies for cooperating with the Executive Branch in violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act want to tell a story. The story goes like this:
1) After 9/11/01, the Administration HAD to order violations of FISA because of the terrorist threat.
2) The telephone companies, except for Qwest, agreed to cooperate in the lawbreaking because they are “patriotic corporate citizens”, presumably doing the right thing.
3) If their lawbreaking is not retroactively sanctioned, then those “patriotic corporate citizens” might well decline to be “patriotic” in the future.
However, when confronted with the facts contained in the audit by the Inspector General then a reasonable person could ask, “If the corporate citizens are so patriotic that we need to give them something unprecedented as a reward for their patriotism, then why would they disconnect a national security wiretap for something like a delayed payment?” My answer to that question is that the “patriotic corporate citizen” line is a crock.
71. Almiranta | February 14th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Diana, it is fascinating to watch you spin so totally out of control.
You can ASSERT things all you want to, but that doesn’t make them true. Or right. So your silly little timeline, 1 through 3, is based on your ASSERTIONS. And they are false.
GIGO.
Yes, we get it. Yes, we know how passionately dedicated you are to advancing your own peculiar belief system, and how strident you can be when you are so occupied.
But you are simply wrong. And you can scream all you want to, your indignation won’t make you right, your repeated yet bogus claims that certain things are “illegal” won’t make them so—-you are just wrong.
And if you really do have any aspect or degree of truth on your side, why do you and your fellow travellers still cling to that inaccurate term “wiretapping”? Why? Because it has such emotional resonance, that’s why. Because it has emotional links to all sorts of negative imagery you can tap into to bolster your feeble claims of wrongdoing.
I love how you just ignore every fact that contradicts your fanatical fervor. And by the way, every fact DOES contradict your evangelical zeal to convert everyone to your highly flawed belief system.
Faceplant, you say “a Federal Judge has already ruled this program illegal. And nothing you say changes that.”
And nothing you can say makes her right. Oooh, a FEDERAL JUDGE—an unelected political appointee, taking a partisan stand, which by the way is in opposition to legislation and the many many MANY legal opinions on the legality of this program which preceded her ruling.
As for the whine that I don’t answer some of your questions out of arrogance, or whatever the latest ad hominem attack may be—why bother? After months and months of providing factual information and wasting hours answering questions,s only to have facts ignored or denied, I have learned that facts don’t concern most of you in the slightest, and in fact often tend to just enrage you and engender even more ad hominem attacks.
Facts are out there–you could find them if truth and accuracy were important to you.
72. Tractatus | February 14th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
You can ASSERT things all you want to, but that doesn’t make them true.
You mean like claiming “Diana the Red” (among, well, pretty much everybody else here who isn’t a hardline conservative) is a socialist?
No, you couldn’t possibly mean that. That would indicate self-awareness on your part, and you’ve repeatedly demonstrated that you don’t have that.
Now go get yourself another saucer of milk, mkay?