Bush Grants Immunity to Telecom Companies

NatureDriven

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Messages
589
Reaction score
0
Do we live in Iran? What the F#? Weren't we warned about this in the book 1984?

WASHINGTON - President Bush signed a bill Thursday that overhauls rules about government eavesdropping and grants immunity to telecommunications companies that helped the U.S. spy on Americans in suspected terrorism cases.


He called it "landmark legislation that is vital to the security of our people."


ADMIN MODE.

PLEASE DO NOT COPY ENTIRE ARTICLES AND POST THEM HERE, IT'S A COPYRIGHT ISSUE. YOU CAN POST ONE OR TWO PARAGRAPHS AND A LINK, NOTHING MORE.

THANK YOU.
 



chuam

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
2,425
Reaction score
0
But if you have nothing to hide then it won't affect you...............
 

gwhunter69

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jun 10, 2002
Messages
13,215
Reaction score
2
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
But if you have nothing to hide then it won't affect you...............[/b]
...and Obama said he would have done the same thing...
 

Orygun

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Messages
7,276
Reaction score
71
I don't have cell phone and have never read a contract for one. Is there language there or in FTC regs that specifically states that conversations are private and will never be shared (outside of the usual disclaimer about hawking your personal info to other companies for $$)?

Bush ought to thank the DNC. Without it's membership to help pass the bill up on Capitol Hill, he would never have had the chance to sign it.
 

NatureDriven

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Messages
589
Reaction score
0
Lets make this fair and balanced . . . Give the American people the powers to spy on our elected officials conversations, emails, etc. We'll be happy to give immunity to the telecom company's for their help. Wait, isn't this more inline with how things should be done? I think our founding fathers must be stabbing their eyes out by now. They didn't fight and die for this.
 

Val

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
1,317
Reaction score
4
Blame Bush? The Democratic controlled Congress passed the legislation and sent it to Pres. Bush.
 

NatureDriven

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Messages
589
Reaction score
0
Val, do you not recall the fact that Bush has been doing this since 2001? It's not until the past year that this was brought to the surface and then formally taken up in the government. And yes, the democrats have the majority, but again, the President is the one who authorized this from the start, when Republicans had the majority. The president could have vetoed this legislation today. Funny that he's been doing it all along, no wonder there was no veto.
 

Scottyman

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Messages
554
Reaction score
2
Hmm. Some of you obviously have something to hide. ;)

Are we talking to known terrorists overseas again? Hmmm?
 

swampy tim

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2004
Messages
812
Reaction score
3
Bush has a lot to thank the democrats for. He has done nothing that wasn't possable without democrat help. S/T
 

Bullfrog 31581

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
2,142
Reaction score
28
This bill has nothing to do with allowing the government to spy on us citizens whenever, however, ect. This is an amendment to FISA, which stands for the FOREIGN Intelligence Surveillance Act. FISA deals with surveillance of foreign agents that may be on American soil. Basically, for the provisions to provide at least one of the two communicating parties has to be on foreign soil. IT DOES NOT ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO LISTEN IN ON CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN TWO OR MORE CITIZENS WHEN ALL THE PARTIES ARE ON UNITED STATES SOIL. FISA was used in the Cold War to track Soviet spies as they communicated with the USSR. Now we use it to listen in on conversations between al Qaeda agents in America as they talk on cell phones to other al Qaeda members in the middle east. Unless you regularly call people in the Pakistan or Iran, FISA will not allow the government to listen to you.

As for the amendments pertaining to telecom companies, it allows them to give the government logs of the calls between the terrorists here and oversees without fear of being sued. That's the big amendment. Without that protection, the telecoms are too scared to help us. They could get shutdown when Ali-Babba the terrorist sympathizer sues them in Federal court.

Here is the old FISA:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_...10_36_20_I.html

Here is the new Bill itself, to get the most from reading it you need to read it in conjunction with the old FISA:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110...p/~c110wRHa93::

Here is an important excerpt:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
`SEC. 702. PROCEDURES FOR TARGETING CERTAIN PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES OTHER THAN UNITED STATES PERSONS.

`(a) Authorization- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon the issuance of an order in accordance with subsection (i)(3) or a determination under subsection ©(2), the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence may authorize jointly, for a period of up to 1 year from the effective date of the authorization, the targeting of persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information.

`(b) Limitations- An acquisition authorized under subsection (a)--

`(1) may not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States;

`(2) may not intentionally target a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States if the purpose of such acquisition is to target a particular, known person reasonably believed to be in the United States;

`(3) may not intentionally target a United States person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States;

`(4) may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States; and

`(5) shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.[/b]
 

rcrosby

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
18
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Unless you regularly call people in the Pakistan or Iran, FISA will not allow the government to listen to you.[/b]
So those who do business in countries like this have signed off on their Constitutional rights?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
As for the amendments pertaining to telecom companies, it allows them to give the government logs of the calls between the terrorists here and oversees without fear of being sued.[/b]
Who gets to decide "terrorist"?

Do you think this is going to stand up Bullfrog? How can giving retroactive immunity to telecoms who are involved in current legal cases possibly stand up constitutionally?

Article 1 Section 9 United States Constitution : "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed"

This should be a good how far our two party system has turned into a 1 party system with only one goal... Total complete control over our socialist-police state. Any person who would consider themselves a liberal and support this crap is confusing liberalism with socialism.
 

Val

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
1,317
Reaction score
4
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NatureDriven @ Jul 10 2008, 05:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Val, do you not recall the fact that Bush has been doing this since 2001? It's not until the past year that this was brought to the surface and then formally taken up in the government. And yes, the democrats have the majority, but again, the President is the one who authorized this from the start, when Republicans had the majority. The president could have vetoed this legislation today. Funny that he's been doing it all along, no wonder there was no veto.[/b]
I absolutely recall. What was right in 2001 is right today. We must change our tactics to match and counter the tactics used by our enemies in this high tech world. The law abiding loyal Americans have nothing to worry about. The Democrats could have prevented tghis bill by not passing it in both houses. Evidently this bill has merit that even the Democrats see.
 

Bullfrog 31581

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
2,142
Reaction score
28
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Do you think this is going to stand up Bullfrog? How can giving retroactive immunity to telecoms who are involved in current legal cases possibly stand up constitutionally?

Article 1 Section 9 United States Constitution : "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed"[/b]
The ex-post facto prohibition in the Constitution only prohibits the government from retroactively making past conduct criminal when it originally was not. It does not prohibit the government from decriminalizing past conduct that was originally criminal. The case that decided that was Calder v. Bull in 1798.

In other words, if you do X, and X is not a crime, but then government makes X a crime, you cannot be punished for doing X when you did it before X became a crime. But if you do X while it is a crime, and the government passes a law that says that X shall no longer be a crime and everyone who did X in the past shall not be prosecuted, that is permissible.

However, I think this is primarily dealing with civil liability anyhow. Its saying that there is no civil cause of action by which the telecompanies can be sued so long as they are acting within the provisions of this law. I don't think that even falls within the ex post facto provision of the Constitution to begin with.

Here's a quote from Calder v. Bull that gives the basic definition of ex-post facto laws that all our other jurisprudence on the subject is built on:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
I will state what laws I consider ex post facto laws, within the words and the intent of the prohibition. 1st. Every law that makes an action , done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2nd. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3rd. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender. All these, and similar laws, are manifestly unjust and oppressive. In my opinion, the true distinction is between ex post facto laws, and retrospective laws. Every ex post facto law must necessarily be retrospective; but every retrospective law is not an ex post facto law: The former, only, are prohibited. Every law that takes away, or impairs, rights vested, agreeably to existing laws, is retrospective, and is generally unjust; and may be oppressive; and it is a good general rule, that a law should have no retrospect: but there are cases in which laws may justly, and for the benefit of the community, and also of individuals, relate to a time antecedent to their commencement; as statutes of oblivion, or of pardon. They are certainly retrospective, and literally both concerning, and after, the facts committed. But I do not consider any law ex post facto, within the prohibition, that mollifies the rigor of the criminal law; but only those that create, or aggravate, the crime; or encrease the punishment, or change the rules of evidence, for the purpose of conviction. Every law that is to have an operation before the making thereof, as to commence at an antecedent time; or to save time from the statute of limitations; or to excuse acts which were unlawful, and before committed, and the like; is retrospective. But such laws may be proper or necessary, as the case may be. There is a great and apparent difference between making an UNLAWFUL act LAWFUL; and the making an innocent action criminal, and punishing it as a CRIME. The expressions ‘ex post facto laws,’ are technical, they had been in use long before the Revolution, and had acquired an appropriate meaning, by Legislators, Lawyers, and Authors. The celebrated and judicious Sir William Blackstone, in his commentaries, considers an ex post facto law precisely in the same light I have done. His opinion is confirmed by his successor, Mr. Wooddeson; and by the author of the Federalist, who I esteem superior to both, for his extensive and accurate knowledge of the true principles of Government.[/b]
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
So those who do business in countries like this have signed off on their Constitutional rights?[/b]
No they have not. FISA only allows warrentless wiretaps for foreign powers or their agents. There must not be a substantial likelyhood that a "United States person" (which includes citizens, legal aliens, and corporations) will be a party to the communication. In order to determine that these conditions are met, the wiretap must be approved by House and Senate committees and the FISA Court.

If citizens, legal aliens, or corporations are involved, the government is subject to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.
 

Spoony

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2003
Messages
242
Reaction score
0
We've had this for years.

Who has been questioned/arrested for things other then terrorist activities, with the wire tapping?
 

Common Sense

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 20, 2004
Messages
10,580
Reaction score
155
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Spoony @ Jul 12 2008, 06:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
We've had this for years.

Who has been questioned/arrested for things other then terrorist activities, with the wire tapping?[/b]

We don't know. The government sends those folks to a prison down in Cuba. They don't get a lawyer, nor do they even get told why they are being held as enemy combatants.
 

Bullfrog 31581

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
2,142
Reaction score
28
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
We don't know. The government sends those folks to a prison down in Cuba. They don't get a lawyer, nor do they even get told why they are being held as enemy combatants.[/b]
The prisoners down in Guantanamo are generally caught on the battlefield. The wiretaps are for intellegence gathering. They actually can get lawyers and they have the right request a writ to habeas corpus.
 

Common Sense

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 20, 2004
Messages
10,580
Reaction score
155
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bullfrog 31581 @ Jul 12 2008, 09:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
The prisoners down in Guantanamo are generally caught on the battlefield. The wiretaps are for intellegence gathering. They actually can get lawyers and they have the right request a writ to habeas corpus.[/b]


"GENERALLY" caught on the battlefield. They have the right to "request" a writ to habeas corpus.


Fact is we don't know who all they have down there and an enemy combatant can be someone who has never been out of the state of Iowa in their life.


I doubt the government has done much, if anything, wrong down there. But without checks and balances, it will happen sooner or later. Absolute power does corupt.
 

Bullfrog 31581

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
2,142
Reaction score
28
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
"GENERALLY" caught on the battlefield. They have the right to "request" a writ to habeas corpus.[/b]
I said "generally," because I'm sure that many of the high ranking al-Qaeda agents snatched are actually grabbed while hiding in secret compartments is al-Qaeda safe houses, which wouldn't be the same as them surrendering after the end of a firefight on the battlefield as I think of it.

They have the same right we do in regards to habeas corpus. The right to request it is the right to have the hearing.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Fact is we don't know who all they have down there and an enemy combatant can be someone who has never been out of the state of Iowa in their life.


I doubt the government has done much, if anything, wrong down there. But without checks and balances, it will happen sooner or later. Absolute power does corupt.[/b]
Guantanamo Bay is pretty open as prisoner of war/enemy combatant camps go. If they had some innoccent farmer from Iowa stowed away in there, it would have likely leaked out. Besides, the farmer's family would have ran to the media faster than lightning to report how the farmer was snatched in the middle of the night by government agents and carted off to destinations unknown.

What sort of check or balance could stop the government from secretly snatching US citizens and stoying them in Guantanamo? What needs to change?
 

Common Sense

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 20, 2004
Messages
10,580
Reaction score
155
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bullfrog 31581 @ Jul 12 2008, 11:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
What needs to change?[/b]

Speedy trials. People spend years locked up, and then are released with no trial. Even the government says they expect to let all but about 60 to 80 of the prisoners go free, without a trial.
 

upperEA

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2003
Messages
2,651
Reaction score
3
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
The law abiding loyal Americans have nothing to worry about[/b]
Tell that to the Japanese Americans that spent time in the internment camps.

It gets old hearing this as justification for our rights to be eaten away bit by bit.
 


Top Bottom