Is it the role of telecom companies to decide whether the federal government is complying with the Constitution?

No, but it’s the role of the telecom companies to ensure their actions do not violate the constitution or laws on the books.

Look, if we had a monarchy, it would be one thing. But, we don’t. We are supposed to have the rule of law. The rule of law says that no one is above the law. It means that the law sits on top of things. If the President tells you to jump and the constitution says that you cannot jump, I don’t think you should jump.

Quest refused to comply. It’s possible to refuse. You make it sound like once the request was made there was nothing telecoms could do rather than bow down.

Plus, on the topic of the lawsuit, let’s assume that my rights were really violated. Take this for granted. Are you telling me that because XYZ person will file a frivolous lawsuit I don’t have a right to have my day in court? Is there no way for me to get redress?

People can talk about tort reform for many reasons. Here is one that has nothing to do with frivolous lawsuit: the cost of a tort trial can be excessive in proportion to the amount of money at stake. You could do tort reform to avoid that. For example, you can move to a no fault system in car or employment injuries to minimize that cost. The compromise is as follow: you waive your right to sue to ensure you will get compensated for injuries suffered when you get into an accident. Lawyers fees will be non existent, thereby saving money.

Do you have any evidence that your civil rights have been violated?

No, and I am not saying mine were, but look at the case that was recently thrown out and it seems the plaintiff had received secret information that showed that to be the case, but weren’t allowed to use it because it was secret.

from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23235602/

A lawsuit filed by an Islamic charity met a similar fate. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year ruled against the Oregon-based U.S. arm of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, concluding that a key piece of evidence is protected as a state secret.

In that case, the charity alleged the National Security Agency illegally listened to its calls. The charity had wanted to introduce as evidence a top-secret call log it received mistakenly from the Treasury Department.

Given that the telecom companies really had no choice but to cooperate,

Except they did have a choice, and one company refused to cooperate.

It’s a compromise that will satisfy all but the hard Left, who by this time have to finally wonder exactly how far out of the mainstream they are.

The Hard Left doesn’t think they’re out of the mainstream, so they’ll continue to tilt at windmills, but the rest of the American public may finally be realizing just how out of touch they are.

Finally, if the next time company companies pause before violating my civil rights, it will be a great day.

mycowardice on March 2, 2008 at 9:26 PM

Is it the role of telecom companies to decide whether the federal government is complying with the Constitution?

It should be blindingly obvious that the federal government has the right to demand wiretaps or the turnover of private information in a criminal case, or in national security cases when the individual in question is a foreigner involved in a plot to attack the U.S.

Given that there are circumstances where the government obviously has the right to demand this information, is there any right at all by the telecom company to refuse? It’s not their call whether the request is in compliance with the Constitution. That’s exactly why we have all the overhead of FISA to begin with.

Given that the telecom companies really had no choice but to cooperate, it’s a shame that a law has to be passed explicitly granting immunity from civil prosecution.

Frivolous lawsuits will be thrown out. Do you know for a fact there is no merit to any of the claims? If you do, don’t worry, those will be thrown out asap and everybody will be moving on.

mycowardice on March 2, 2008 at 9:26 PM

Wrong. You clearly do not know what you are talking about.

100% of “frivolous lawsuits” will NOT be thrown out. It depends on the venue in which they are filed and heard.

If all “frivolous lawsuits” are thrown out, then why does one hear about tort reform?

When you start cheering large corporations being given immunity to violate the Constitution…it may be time to rethink your politics.

alphie on March 1, 2008 at 1:00 PM

Puhlease…

Do you have any evidence that your civil rights have been violated? Frivolous lawsuits cost real money; frivolous lawsuits are exactly why most Americans see lawyers as “RATS”, or worse.

Back-up your claim, or remain a typical conspiracy minded artist. The only merit to these claims is the fact that “trial lawyers” stand to make millions upon millions even if the cases get tossed.

mycowardice on March 2, 2008 at 9:26 PM

Hussein! Penguin lover! Go to North Korea and read a book on evolution!

The only reason we need to grant retroactive immunity is because some moonbats are filing frivolous and mischievous lawsuits against the telecoms for cooperating with the NSA on data mining international communications, much of which passes through their equipment in the United States. There was nothing illegal about it, but these companies will be shy about cooperating further if they have to tie up time and money defending themselves in court.

Frivolous lawsuits will be thrown out. Do you know for a fact there is no merit to any of the claims? If you do, don’t worry, those will be thrown out asap and everybody will be moving on.

But here, my guess is that something else is going on. There must be merit to some of the claims. And this is what is scaring everybody.

Finally, if the next time company companies pause before violating my civil rights, it will be a great day.

A Dorian Gray without the painting in both appearance and character.

Oh, yeah… and did I mention that it’s the other side that hates America?

I could pick apart her inane political positions, but, sheesh, that face. Down. Right. Horror. Novel. Worthy.

The situation here is really different. The telecommunication companies knew they were potentially doing something wrong. Or they ought to have known. Either way, they should have gone to Congress to get the proper law passed. If the Constitution stands in the way, then we should amend it. To grant retroactive immunity at this point makes a mockery of the constitution. I cannot understand why right wingers are not as mad as us for this blantant violation of civil rights.

mycowardice on March 1, 2008 at 10:09 PM

The only reason we need to grant retroactive immunity is because some moonbats are filing frivolous and mischievous lawsuits against the telecoms for cooperating with the NSA on data mining international communications, much of which passes through their equipment in the United States. There was nothing illegal about it, but these companies will be shy about cooperating further if they have to tie up time and money defending themselves in court.

For lucid analysis of the issues involved, please hop over to this thread on the PowerLine Forum,

http://www.plnewsforum.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/29738/

and read Cynick Al’s posts (contra one ‘Tolliver’).

Anyone using the phrase “paradigmatic fascism” in regards to the United States is clearly unaware of what fascism truly entails. There is a difference between having a vocabulary and being intelligent. Learn it.

Maybe you should start here, here and here before you employ ad hominem and call me a dumbass. I am sure you can win any debate, as long as you get to control the semantics.

I would suggest you read up on fascism before you open your jingoistic-fascistic piehole.

While I’m on it, no thread jack here, it’s similar to conflating legal and documented immigration with illegal immigration; controlled borders, that every single nation on Earth concerns themselves with wide-open uncontrolled borders.

I’m not a big fan of lawyers, but, if more lawyers is what it takes to maintain my Constitutional rights…they’re worth it.

The Senate FISA bill also prevents states from investigating and prosecuting telecoms that violate their laws…which should rub the anti-Roe crowd the wrong way.

We don’t know that they did anything wrong. The immunity is not from criminal prosecution, but from civil suit.

Pablo on March 2, 2008 at 1:25 AM

We don’t know, and it sure looks like we won’t be able to know since these telcos will get immunity.

Can you explain to me why, if my rights were infringed by the telcos, I would not have the right to sue? What difference does it make if it’s criminal or civil?

Funny.

My question is what concessions did Mr Bush make so Democrats would go along with FISA? I almost don’t want to know. It would probably make me mad.

You know, I really wonder, almost seriously, how the Democrats would react and handle if the president switched his party alignment to Democrat (he certainly has liberal credentials to back up such a move). Would they stop their harping on Iraq? FISA? Halliburton? I mean, Democrats don’t seem to mind military actions when the guy running the W.H. has a (D) after his name. Perhaps Mr Bush, for the last of his term, should switch parties just to jack with the Democrats.

Despite any implications from our side for such a move, it would still be hilarious to watch the Democrats go bonkers if Mr Bush really did switch his party to Democrat.

1. Democrats currently control both houses of congress.

2. This control includes chairmainship of various committees and sub-committees that could touch this issue from different angles: Telecommunications regulation, intelligence gathering, homeland security, and so forth.

3. The combination of the above 2 points means Democrats in either house can subpoena and investigate any criminal wrongdoing on behalf of the telcos, the intelligence community, or the administration. Somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe they’ve already done this. Have they not?

If this immunity is regarding civil action as another commenter has suggested, rather than criminal action, then I’m in full support of this immunity being granted. Criminal investigations can still continue if needed, but civil lawsuits from groups like CAIR and the ACLU that demand full public disclosure will be stopped cold.