So if they did break the law then who’s held responsible for it?
Afterimage on June 19, 2008 at 9:20 PM

My question would be…

Where the hell in this vast audience are the learned “keepers of the gee-damn law” in this cluster of fine folks?

Afterimage on June 19, 2008 at 9:20 P

Damn good question…!

This deal does not include explicit immunity for the telecoms. It does, however, provide a standard by which a federal court can determine whether each telecom qualifies for the immunity provisions in the bill by verifying that they received requests and/or approvals from federal agencies that assured the telecoms of the legality of their cooperation. Although it requires a court proceeding to grant immunity, it establishes a clear presumption in favor of the telecoms.

So if they did break the law then who’s held responsible for it?

Hog Wild on June 19, 2008 at 8:45 PM

Hey H_W…
Shouldn’t it be…dying and then walking…

We’ll end up walking and dying early if they do.

Damning…
Hostile…
Confrontational…
Very thoughtful…
Actually my very favorites are; those that show me… a new path and are done insightfully!

Absolutely my very favorite phrase…!
Thanks again!

Destiny calls… it took me a bit-o-time to get back to issue at hand!

“…It’s clear on this point. So the question posed here is whether or not telecoms should get retroactive immunity for actions they performed in bad faith (i.e. knowing they were illegal) but with “patriotic intentions.” I say no. The law is the law, and they helped the government break it. The road to tyranny is paved with patriotic intentions. Yes, FISA should be amended so that foreign-to-foreign calls that route through the U.S. can be intercepted — immunity for law breakers isn’t required to do that. Had immunity been stripped out, we wouldn’t have had this “intelligence gap.” To people who opposed immunity, the Constitution and the rule of law was more important than our intelligence capabilities. To people who supported immunity and bundled it, giving special favors to the their telecom friends was more important than our intelligence capabilities. You tell me which side has the moral high ground.
Mark Jaquith on June 19, 2008 at 3:40 PM

Thank you!

My very fine M_J…!

ENGLEBERT HUMPMYDINGLE – What the hell is that smell?

LevStrauss on June 19, 2008 at 3:53 PM

Question here L_S…
Conservative; I know that you are!

Do “Dittoheads” fall helplessly into this catagory?
Just asking…? :)

flenser on June 19, 2008 at 3:57 P

My dear flenser, I, appreciate your thoughts.

Your Internet Service Provider [ISP] is required by law to keep records of your communications.

Here’s the rub olde boy, the gov-mint doesn’t get access to those records without an appropriate warrant from a court of law.

Do you get my drift… Rule-of-law, my man!
Or don’t you give a good hot-damn?

First they put away the dealers,
keep our kids safe and off the street.
Then they put away the prostitutes,
keep married men cloistered at home.
Then they shooed away the bums,
then they beat and bashed the queers,
turned away asylum-seekers,
fed us suspicions and fears.
We didn’t raise our voice,
we didn’t make a fuss.
It’s funny there was no one left to notice
when they came for us.
War on Errorism

My gleeful conservative e-posters…do you understand what precisely constitutes domestic or international telephone voice or data and email communications?

I’ve always assumed that any email I send, and any comment I post on a blog, is quickly traceable back to me by the government if they wish.

Now, there is an argument to be made that this should not be the case. But it’s wrong to assume that this new bill alters the reality of what government does.

Anyone who does not want their email read by third parties should look into PGP. Just be aware that PGPing your correspondence will itself attract attention.

That would allow the government, in certain circumstances, to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens without a specific warrant.

Depending on the “certain circumstances”, that may be a good thing or a bad thing.

You’re not entitled to a single one of those inferences based on what I wrote.

DrSteve on June 19, 2008 at 3:30 PM

Well then please expand on your first statement. If you were insinuating that I was a liberal you most certainly deserved it. The authoritarian streak that has clouded the “conservative” wing of the Republican Party is very insulting and obnoxious to me.

More importantly does the gov-mint know? If they do; do they give a hot damn about your personal freedom and individual rights?

A phone user places a call via a landline to the local CO [central office], to space satellite, to digital land router, to satellite, to digital land router to analog landline and finally to another personal phone.

How about you internet phone users? Your calls may indeed be routed overseas via [best route sorting algorithms’] and back to the US before reaching your neighbor two blocks down the street, just as the landline call I illustrated above.

Best of luck…SUCKERS!

It does, however, provide a standard by which a federal court can determine whether each telecom qualifies for the immunity provisions in the bill by verifying that they received requests and/or approvals from federal agencies that assured the telecoms of the legality of their cooperation.

That is de facto immunity. Of course the government said their requests were legal. They were lying to get what they wanted. The telecom companies knew they were lying. They know the law. It’s clear on this point. So the question posed here is whether or not telecoms should get retroactive immunity for actions they performed in bad faith (i.e. knowing they were illegal) but with “patriotic intentions.” I say no. The law is the law, and they helped the government break it. The road to tyranny is paved with patriotic intentions. Yes, FISA should be amended so that foreign-to-foreign calls that route through the U.S. can be intercepted — immunity for law breakers isn’t required to do that. Had immunity been stripped out, we wouldn’t have had this “intelligence gap.” To people who opposed immunity, the Constitution and the rule of law was more important than our intelligence capabilities. To people who supported immunity and bundled it, giving special favors to the their telecom friends was more important than our intelligence capabilities. You tell me which side has the moral high ground.