http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/ss/nationworld/77125.php

The eavesdropping law has expired, and of course, it needed to be terminated with predjudice instead of allowed to die a peaceful death

But it is pretty hilarious to me to hear the Shrub say that the "nation is in danger now"- since they are still allowed to eavesdrop, and in emergency cases, don't need a judges order- but can file for it retroactively.

1) Do you think this law makes the US "less safe" as GW says?

2) Do you think that the current eavesdropping law is fine on it's own- considering you still don't need a warrant for emergency taps until seven days after the tap has been put in place?

3) Do you think this is a victory for civil rights in the US, and some "pushback" in regards to the assault on freedom that the GW admin has waged against it's citizens?

Hilarious doesn't cover it. The Bush administration - along with the usual apologists - claim we are now in danger because brown people are dumb enough to divulge sensitive information over a phone line they know is possibly being monitored. But more importantly, the well being of our telecoms - who claim they have broken no laws - is more important than our safety.

So really, if the telecoms and our government have been working within the law, why is immunity an issue? And why is their immunity from legal or civil action more important than our safety? Can anybody answer that? Anyone? Anyone? Buellar? Buellar?

Amazing how no evidence is eve produced tojustify these purposeful scare tactics. Yes, we are at risk because having togo back retroactively to get a warrant is just too difficult and ultimately, binds hte hands of justice and allows terrorists everywhere, to roam freely.



I do not, his position is absolutely absurd and is purely motivated out of partisan spite. The FISA bill has been routinely modified, allows for all technology to be monitored, not to mention, giving government a ton of leeway in regards to taking care of business. For more on that, click click here.



Why wouldn't it be? Oh yeah, it wouldn't be fine if you wanted to just hold someone until you could think of something to charge him with later on.



Iti s a victory for civil rights, but it's more of a default victory. This whole FISA thing reeks of the Japanese internment, the red scare, the McCarthy hearings, and the Alien-Sedition Acts. It will be looked upon at a later time as a period when we lost our sensibilities and let the pendulum swing completely the other way, all the while, forgetting who we were, and what we supposedly stood for.

Okay its not the best debate thread contribution, but I would like to point out that I wholeheartedly agree that DaytonRocker has the question that requires an answer. Why should we retroactively forgive the telecommunications companies if they have violated the law, and I think it is pretty likely they really, really, violated our rights.




Again, I agree here. While we may be less safe from international Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, I have long contended that our more realistic threat is that of dramatically lessening our rights through the expansion of government powers of surveillance.

We will never create a threat-free world and our founding fathers did not expect one. They clearly saw the government and tyranny as the most likely threats to our liberties. I believe we currently match the entire world in military spending. We have tremendously expanded the corridors funded by our government, including meetings held by our elected officials over shaping policy and all of the private companies contracting to participate in our security operations. Our present policies clearly belong in the thread of our history referred to by Nebraska above.

I wish we had a Congress that had the determination to protect our liberties that would pass this extension with reduced authority and no exemptions for law breakers. Instead we got a limp approach that simply showed a Congress incapable of actions while most paid lip-service to the need to continue these policies.

Now the Reps have their ammunition to shoot at the Dems for being incapapble of doing what is necessary for protecting the nation from attacks, while the Dems cannot claim to have acted to try to best serve the interests of the people. They let this expire and they are likely hoping to play whatever spin they can try to make based on the polls near the election. They should have passed a law of their choosing.

But mostly I chimed in because I thought the two previous posts were very well expressed, astute points.

Someone called for an apologist?

1) Do you think this law makes the US "less safe" as GW says?

Of course it does, in a relative sense. There are two things to consider here.

First, the normal procedures that the NSA has been using for a long while now are disrupted. They will need to adopt new procedures and until those are running smoothly, our capabilities and our intelligence gathering is hampered.

Second, it does make it more difficult to gather intelligence without these measures. I don't think anyone can really debate that. The question is whether or not the increased safety is worth the potential loss of civil liberties. I say potential because this program covered international calls where at least one side of the conversation is a known or suspected terrorist. That doesn't cover very many Americans.

Again, this technique is designed for the situation where the NSA is tracking the activities of Mohammed the Terrorist in Syria (let's say) where no warrant of any kind is needed. If Mohammed makes a call to Phoenix, Arizona or LA then we have to stop listening to him? The outraged will say that a retroactive warrant can be issued but there are real logistical problems to that. Getting the AG to approve it beforehand, which means he needs intimate knowledge of the situation, etc. Retroactive warrants can only be used in "emergency" situations and the judge needs to be informed immediately, with the warrant application coming retroactively. The emergency surveillance can only last 24 hours.

It simply isn't as easy as it is presented.

All that said, the need for increased techniques may no longer be necessary. I have no idea what the level of chatter is these days. But God forbid that there is an attack that could have been prevented. There will be political hell to pay for whichever administration allows an attack to succeed.

2) Do you think that the current eavesdropping law is fine on it's own- considering you still don't need a warrant for emergency taps until seven days after the tap has been put in place?

When you get your facts straight, maybe this one will be answered.

3) Do you think this is a victory for civil rights in the US, and some "pushback" in regards to the assault on freedom that the GW admin has waged against it's citizens?

I suppose that civil rights have been advanced (or returned) presuming that American citizens were ever the target of this type of surveillance. This have never been proven, however. There is always a balance between liberty and security and this is simply one more exchange in that never-ending battle.

How does it make it more difficult? They can do what they always do, but they need a warrant. They have 72 hours AFTER the fact to get a warrant. Bush is asking for no warrants or oversight at all. Back in the old days, conservatives wanted less government in our lives. Now they want more than liberals ever did with less oversight.

Secondly, if somebody has something to hide, do you think they are retarded enough to speak openly about it over a phone line they know could be tapped (legally)? If Habib is in Saudi Arabia talking to Mohammad in Tuscon, that configuration could trigger a wire tap. I know it - you know it - and anybody with 3 brain cells to run together know it. So, what are the odds of catching something? Very, very little.

However, if they are data mining without regard to location, the odds increase. But they are not allowed to do what clearly, they have been doing - that's the reason for immunity in my opinion.

But again, we have wide open borders. There is nothing stopping anybody from walking across the border to have this conversation or take action on the conversation. Amlord, how can you say warrantless wiretapping with total immunity keeps us safe while our borders are wide open with a straight face? Hell, how can anything we are doing help keep us safe when Bush is willing to grant amnesty to Habib when he walks across our open border?

The idea that you are willing to trade your civil liberties and give government more unchecked power while the barn door is wide open is absurd.

Different debate. The fact that security is weak in one area is not an argument that we should be weak in another area. It is absurd to suggest otherwise.



This is simply a rehash of other debates. You don't think the burden is much of a hurdle and yet the people involved do. Thanks, but I'll take John McConnell's side on this one.



There are 3.5 billion cell users in the world. The chances of you being detected is pretty darn low unless the NSA/CIA/whomever is already on your trail. The NSA's rules mean only probably cause of a terrorist on one end can trigger a tap. So not every call from any Habib in Egypt is tapped.



Since there is no evidence that they are data mining, we can ignore this one.

So Amlord, how in hte world is having SOME oversite so deadly to the US- remember- they are still allowed to tap the call, in a so called "emergency" and file the paperwork afterward-

seriously- how does anyone justify the need for no warrant whatsoever, when they still are able to use "time is of the essence " logic and apply for the paperwork after the fact?

What kind of logic is there here that says that even that is too much?

And Amlord- how come you believe the goverment that runs all the things like welfare and the post office so badly, yet you are so willing to believe them unfallible when it comes to protecting our civil liberties?

Why are they the goats when doing social work, but angels when they are spying on others?

Why the inconsistancy in your "goverment is bad, business is good" arguments here?

Again, this is a gross misunderstanding of the process.

In order for a surveillance to continue once the overseas surveillance crosses a US component (remember, it is entirely possible and indeed likely that NEITHER end of the conversation is occuring in the US) the AG must be involved in order to give the OK to proceed. Luckily he can OK it for a 24 hour period but then he must get personally involved again.



Three words: THEY ARE OVERSEAS.



Luckily for me I never claimed that they are infallible or even that they doing a good job. I certainly never said anything about "protecting our civil liberties". This entire line of logic is wrong-headed.


I never said government is good in this case. However, they should be allowed to do their job which is to protect us from threats, both internal and external.

In this case, the threat is external. The surveillance is overseas, but crosses some threshold (such as a switching station) that brings the surveillance into the domestic US. This can occur even if the surveillance does not occur on anybody in the US.

This program involves only cases where one party is outside of the US and one party is a suspected terrorist. It is foreign intelligence gathering.

So what if someone has to get woke up in the middle of the night to get a warrant after the fact Amlord? I mean, really, that definately fall under the heading "it is part of your job, cowboy up and stop your whining"- cops have to get warrants every day, and quickly, almost instantly- I have seen them do it. What you are talking about here is protecting agents from thier god given right to be lazy.

What you are describing, to me, sounds like the perfect "check and balance" against goverment abuse of power- someone at the top, has to be notified, probably in writing with a report at some point, then go talk to a judge- though not until after they have already done the dead- so you have someone watching the watchers.

Protection from abuse while still allowing the "time is of the essence" issue in gaining intell- what can be so wrong with people forced to do thier jobs?

What, they don't like too much oversite? Um, again, they can take a walk over this one- don't like it, you don't belong in this line of work. That is how we have a free and open society- because we put checks and balances against secret goverment organizations.

One thing it definately does is keep petty wire taps off the table, and using this as routine to do them anywhere- even if all parties ARE domestic callers.

What keeps the CIA from abusing this power, and start using this to gather data on US citizens, I mean, we have a history of this abuse, very recent- in J Edgar Hoover.

With no oversite, and easily hidden powers like this- what is to keep the J Edgar Hoover's of today honest Amlord?

They have a large enough budget, and budget ANY goverment agency would envy, with very little oversite in how they spend it- they have a monster budget, and they can hire as many personell as they need to get the job done- unlike cops in any big city. Good police work has been the #1 reason for the arrest of terrorists in western country- just good ol' fashion within the boundries of the law police work.

All we have now is "take my word for it, it is working"- we have zero proof that this eavesdropping law has been successful in any meaningful way whatsoever- and I am not willing to take any goverment official's word for it, and certainly not ANYTHING that the GW admin has to say about it-

but we do have some good examples, especially in Europe, of good police work getting the job done, with no need to need extra special laws to do it.

It is just silly to think "oh, it is just to cumbersome if we do an emergency tap right now, and gee, the AG may have to wake up"- too bad, so sad, can't do the job, let someone else do it, What a wussy explanation of why they need to have no oversight whatsoever.

I'll thank you in advance for at least attempting to understand what is going on here. By your rant above, you simply don't understand.

The current FISA system is simply unable to respond to today's technologies. It was borderline in 1978 and it is wholly inadequate today.

Whispering Wires and Warrantless Wiretaps:
Data Mining and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance



I will state again, for the umpteenth time, that this is not domestic spying and it is not wholesale data mining of telephone or internet communications. Such a program is beyond anyone's (or any government's) ability. The amount of data is simply too much to comprehend: billions of phonecalls and billions more emails every day.

I believe they are concerned about ex post facto litigation. That's when an action taken in the past becomes illegal, rendering some guilty of breaking laws even if their actions were legal at the time.

Fortunately, our Founding Fathers expected situations such as this. No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional, clearly writen in the U.S. Constitution. There is no reason anyone should be concerned about any litigation, as it would never hold up in court.

I understand what you are saying Amlord, no problem at all- what I am saying is, there is still no need for something beyond and above what FISA did in 1978.

Yes or no, an emergency wiretap can be done, at anytime, without a warrant to "slow things down" in the "time is of the essence" argument?

If it is possible to get the tap to "listen in on the bad guys"- then there is no need for further powers- period.

This is basically what Mike McConnell the Director of National Intelligence said last week on Fox News Sunday. From that interview......



He went on later in the interview to talk about the problems with litigation that could happen without immunity from liability for the private carriers. Basically it takes the after-the-fact provision of FISA out of play since the private company could refuse to cooperate with the authorities until they get a warrant. And the reason they would do this would be out of fear of lawsuits filed against them for invasion of privacy.


Aquilla

Personally, I like that even more Aquilla, I very much like the idea of lawsuits by US citizens cleaning out the bank accounts of telecom corporations for cooperating with law enforcment without warrants- this is an even better check against goverment abuse

once again- who protects us from the J Edgar Hoovers? It is hard enough to protect us against the federal goverment with the laws we have in place already.

If anything, we have such politiziation of the "WOT" that the intell agencies in the US are actually HARMING investigations in thier attempts to show how good US methods are :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/aug/20/usa.terrorism

ti-terror police in Britain have made an angry request to their US counterparts asking them to stop leaking details of this month's suspected bomb plot over fears that it could jeopardise the chances of a successful prosecution and hamper the gathering of evidence.
The British security services, MI5 and MI6, are understood to be dismayed that a number of sensitive details surrounding the alleged plot - including an FBI estimate that as many as 50 people were involved - were leaked to the media.

FBI sources confirmed to The Observer that the bureau had been ordered to stop briefing at the request of the British authorities. 'The shutters have come down,' a bureau source said. 'We have been told not to discuss the case any more.'

The request for silence by the British authorities is an early sign that those involved in the investigation have concerns at the way their evidence-gathering is proceeding. It is understood that British anti-terror police wanted to prolong their observation of the suspects for as long as possible in a bid to gather sufficient evidence. There are now fears among some Scotland Yard officers that they may have acted too hastily when deciding to arrest the 24 suspects earlier this month. Although martydom videos and the components of a bomb have been recovered in the investigation, linking such evidence to all those arrested could still prove difficult.


So, you know, if we really wanted to catch terrorists, keeping our mouths shut and actually doing good police work might, you know, help and all

Bottom line is- if the goverment wants to tap in an emergency, it can. Telecom companies act as a check against abuse, through fear of lawsuits.

Sounds like a good check and balance system that protects us from abuses while allowing good police work to continue.

The CIA and the FBI need to stop whining and do thier damn jobs. Like they should have prior to 9/11 and before we went in to Iraq and all.

They fail at thier job, then whine they didn't have the tools or something- this is an excuse NOT a reason.

In CR's latest rant he complains about the FBI giving out information about counter-terrorism operations. Yet, previously, in this very thread he rants.....



Not quite sure how to address this paradox. Oh yeah! CR hates Bush!

Aquilla

ah, you deliberately need to misunderstand my post? It is quite clear what I have said- they are becoming too driven by politics on the WOT, and they have dropped good police techniques to either toot thier own horn or just skip steps needed that all free society police entities need to get.

There is no problem getting taps, warrant or no warrant, right now as it is, on US citizens, by police in regular jobs.

It takes less than 5 minutes to get a warrant by phone from a magistrate. I have seen it in less than 30 seconds in an emergency.

We are talking about removing checks and balances- NOT putting up hurdles here- if the rest of the US police forces and foriegn police forces can do it- so can ours.

Do you really think the surveilence state that Britain has become is good for the US as well? With cameras on every corner, and face recognition tech everywhere you go?

Once again- you fail to answer the main question- they can get wiretaps, no problem, warrant or no warrant, and without these checks and balances, who stops the future J Edgar Hoovers of our intell community?

The pattern has been with these types of agencies all over the world- "it is not our fault we screwed up, it is that we don't get everything we want, when we want it, to do our job"- that works fine in Stalin like dictatorships, but it is an important check against secret intel gathering agencies here, in our barely free country.

The CIA and FBI have a long history of abuses since thier inceptions, and we need those abuses to be put in check.

They have plenty of manpower and money to fight the WOT with good police work, and they don't need any further erosions of civil rights to do thier job.

How so?, what "disruption" has occured and where is the documentation?



I'm not certain that is true, what you described is listedhere.



So even if a citizen is called, a judge can approve it retroactively, as a citizen may be proven to be a member of a terrorist organization.

How much freedom do Americans really have if it is characterized by government surveillance? Like the Victorians who left their curtains open for fear that they might be suspected of impropriety should those curtains be kept closed and their activities concealed from the gaze of nosy people, we have allowed ourselves to be intimidated by what others might think if we insist upon maintaining our privacy.

I am elated that this eavesdropping law has been allowed to expire. The bonus is that George W. Bush has definitively demonstrated his preference for protecting the telecommunications companies over what he has said is the safety of the American people.

"By their fruits ye shall know them..."

Keith Olbermann gave a "Special Comment" the other night about this. Here's the link and an excerpt:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23173388/


George W. Bush's presidency has been characterized by skirting the law and outright violations. Why else would former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales develop such profound amnesia during the Congressional hearings?

The problem is that with many of these measures that were taken ostensibly to provide more safety and security for the American people, we have been relinquishing our privacy and, in some cases, our rights. But the Bush administration has been clever enough to, for the most part, avoid riling people with money and power--people who could really raise a stink about these practices that aren't even legal in some cases!

(Re)publicans seem to fear socialism in the form of health insurance, but they seem to overlook the fact that it is most assuredly more dangerous to have laws such as the PATRIOT Act in place, because they could so easily be used by a dictator or a totalitarian government.

If the party is a suspected terrorist, I don't believe anyone would care where the call originated - that's probable cause. And that's the difference between you and me - I demand probable cause before we start searching someone (which wiretapping is). Without warrants, probable cause is not required. So, that phone call could be an American in the Middle East on business calling his wife. Neither deserve to be searched for simply using a phone in a way that fits a profile.

Your argument is that oversight is dangerous and unwieldy. Well, I'm truly sorry that our liberties are that much trouble

Exactly!, the wording of the bill states that citizen agents of a foreing power The citizen portion and first amendment rights solely has to do with peace groups and the likes, using FISA for political purposes, as opposed to providing probable cause that a citizen, acting as a foreign agent, is bent on worldwide destruction.

FISA code.





I have yet to hear how getting a warrant after the fact has endangered the country. Bueller?.....Bueller?.....Bueller?........

What "Foreign Power" is Osama bin Laden an agent of? Just curious.

The problem with the "warrant after the fact" is that it places private telecom companies at risk if they assist the authorities prior to a warrant being issued. That's why the Bush Administration wants immunity for them.

Aquilla

In that case, I'd be willing to extend to the phone companies, the same 72 hour proviso against mistaken wiretaps, assuming that the government does indeed come up with a warrant, even if it is later found that someone was tapped in error, and was not actually found to be communicating towards terrorist interests.

But I do firmly oppose blanket retroactive immunity, for any and all possible transgressions, whether done in good faith, or out of laziness, or out of malice. Sorry, Aquilla, but that's just plain unAmerican. Even the Cato Institute thinks so:



And while it's all well and good for the conservatives here to rail against the likes of House Democrats for "making us less safe", how can you ignore the President's threatening to veto the bill outright, if it didn't include the telecom immunity provision?

Seems to me that Keith Olbermann's special commentary on this issue was right on the money: If comments like Mr Bush's appear that he is willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater, you can be pretty sure there's really no baby there at all.

Meanwhile the ACLU challenge to the law fails – in part due to the fact that they could not come up with anyone who could prove they were “tapped”.

Court Rejects ACLU Challenge to Wiretaps
| Tuesday, February 19, 2008
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court dealt a setback Tuesday to civil rights and privacy advocates who oppose the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program. The justices, without comment, turned down an appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union to let it pursue a lawsuit against the program that began shortly after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

The action underscored the difficulty of mounting a challenge to the eavesdropping, which remains classified and was confirmed by President Bush only after a newspaper article revealed its existence.
http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2008/02/19...s/d8uticg00.txt

According to the DNI McConnell's interview on FOX News Sunday cited earlier, that is the key provision to this program. The second that a telecom refuses to cooperate with the authorities on a request for a wire-tap without a warrant, the FISA 72 hour provision becomes irrelevant. So now, the NSA (or whoever) has to go to a judge and request a warrant. And, if they get it, the telecom can challenge that warrant, so back to court we go. Meanwhile, Osama is throwing away his cellphone, changing his E-Mail address, and dumping his website "Killamericans.com". So, after the lawyers run up billable hours in court and the issue is resolved, there's nothing to wiretap. It's all gone. They've moved on, we haven't. That's what McConnell meant by a "dynamic situation". We need a law that brings us into the 21st century.




Keith Olbermann is an idiot, always has been an idiot, always will be an idiot. He was a crappy sports guy in LA. He was a crappy sports guy on ESPN and the only way I can think of that he got his current gig on MSNBC is that he has some sort of compromising pictures of someone there.

Edited to add a comment to Ted's post........



Exactly! Can anyone here name anyone who has suffered a "loss of freedom" from this program? Anybody been thrown in jail? Anybody been sent to Club Gitmo? Have there been any court cases or detentions of law-abiding American citizens as a result of this program?

Aquilla

Baloney, you know it, Aquilla. If the telecoms were willing to cough up all the information that the government wanted without a warrant, why on earth would they challenge a warrant produced by the government? It's a non-starter.


Yeah, way to attack the substance of the argument, and not resort to ad-hominems, Aquilla.

Answer the question, please. Bush has explicitly said that if the legislation did not have telecom immunity in it, he would veto the bill. If that's the case, how can you and others here claim that this is strictly the Dems playing politics. If Bush vetos the bill, isn't it he, and he alone, who is making America "less safe"?

A simple yes or no will do.


Gee, another crap argument. Why am I not surprized?

This is a classic "Catch 22" for the plaintiffs, and you know it. The government says that everything obtained under this program is classified, whether it deals with American citizens or not. Americans can't prove that anything illegal took place, unless they can access the information, but they can't access the information, because it's all been classified.

I'd laugh, it it all weren't so seriously making me sick to my stomach.

Right now the telecoms could make a "good faith" argument in court should they be sued for past actions of cooperation. Might work, might not. Without immunity, they couldn't do that in the future. But, where your argument really falls apart is "challenge a warrant". In order to challenge a warrant, one has to exist and there goes the 72 hour thing. So, you lose that window. Now, your suggestion of a 72 hour "immunity window" is a good one. That might work, too bad it wasn't in the bill.



I have never, ever liked Keith Olbermann. What can I say? He's an idiot and living proof of the Peter Principle. I come here day after day and read people attacking those on the right with vicious ad-homins and so when I get the chance to attack a left-wing hack, especially a moron like Keith Olbermann, I just can't resist.






Once again, as Mike McConnell stated, immunity is the key provision in the bill. Without cooperation of the telecoms, the bill is useless. So, the answer is no, Bush vetoing this bill doesn't make a rat's rear end worth of difference.






If someone came into my house and in the dead of night arrested me and whisked me off to Club Gitmo, I think someone like my family might say something about it. Of course, then again, they might not. They think I spend too much time on the computer.

Aquilla

1.) That would be hinged on the argument that it ever improved our safety in the first place.

2.) I would like to see sweeping reform in this area to reduce to time to 24 hours. If it's such a national security risk, why do you leave it tabled for a week to justify the invasion of privacy? Freedom without liberty is like a planet without oxygen.

3.) No, because in the strictest sense, it can still be done with a little more paperwork on the part of the administration. It's a real crying shame that the law expired, because now even more trees or gigabytes or brain cells have to be killed to secure the warrant.

So,since this law has just been "tabled", and not outrright killed, perhaps someone else will think of it as well.

But as to the subscriber information, and the complete access to the telcos comm network? The FISA law was already very specific. The other phone companies should have done just as Quest did. Refuse to turn over that information and level of access until they had a warrant in hand. That they just turned it all over on the "assurances" that the government wouldn't use it for anything "illegal" is nowhere to be found in that portion of the law.


Well,I don't believe you've ever seen me do that in here, so from now on, when I quote somebody, I'd appreciate a little civility, if it's not to much trouble. Fatuous and gratuitous bashing of someone, while avoiding the question posed, hardly moves the discussion forward.


Except for the fact that he insisted that if the bill wasn't passed, then American safety would be compromised. So, I assume you agree with me that if Bush vetos the bill, he, and he alone is the one compromising American's safety.

And again, the Feds didn't ever need a warrant to get wire-taps, as far as the telcos were concerned. What they did need a warrant for the telcos for, was them turning over their subscriber database, and associated records. And of course, unrestricted access to all of their communications network, on an ongoing, nonstop basis, to go data mining.



See, I told you this would be a crap argument. You're not seriously trying to tell everyone here that any person who's ever been tapped has been yanked up in the dead of night, or otherwise, and rendered to some foreign prison are you? You really want to stick with that story?

There are 40 lawsuits against the telcom companies now for helping the government after 9/11 – how stupid id that.

So without immunity the Telco companies will not cooperate without being dragged kicking and screaming and I don’t blame them. So Bush does not want to sign a bill that will not work – sounds smart to me. And Dems want a bill that allows their lawyer buddies to sue everyone for anything.

http://thehill.com/op-eds/private-sector-s...2007-11-08.html

Ted, why are these people suing? If you have forty innocent people that were unfairly targeted, and the telecom industry helped them be victimized by an intelligence agency, well gee, then great, I hope they lose thier shirts. That is what happens when you cooperate with bad guys I guess.

Perhaps the CIA should choose thier targets a little more carefully? Isn't that one of the tenents that our founding fathers were so worried about, and why republics and democracies have failed in the past? Because the secret service and goverment entities operating beyond the fringes of the law?



I bet there isn't a convicted terrorist in the 40

Who are they? I bet you think they were all just as innocent as your granma.

Well, the eavesdropping thing really never bothered me because I had nothing to hide. I understand that folks see this as an infringement on their rights and all, and I can see that point as well. Yes, it could be and may be an infringement on our rights, but if they do need to wiretap me, they're going to be bored to death.
I want that job!
Purrs,
Pookie

Ted, if it's only 40 people suing (so far) that's actually quite restrained. See, the thing is, these telcos turned over everything, literally, at the request of the government. Not at the demand of the government, with a legal warrant, just the request, and no warrant. Phone and cellular networks, internet networks, the works. Just turned it all over.

Now, let's look at who it was did this - AT&T, SBC, Sprint, Verizon. Every major telco in this country, with the exception of Quest. Apparently Quest was the only communications company in the US with lawyers worth the cost of their retainer.

And you think it's absurd that 40 people are suing? Hell, it should be 40 million!


Ted, try to wrap your head around this - what the telcos did was illegal. They knew it, and the administration knew it, and they went ahead and did it anyway. They did it blatantly.

And once they were caught, they tried to insert an amendment into the updated FISA law, that would prevent them from being held accountable for that illegality, retro-actively. It's not about the Dems wanting "their lawyer buddies to profit". It's about holding those responsible for breaking the law accountable in some way to the people they serve, be they customers or taxpayers. Please tell me what's wrong with that, Ted?

I don't believe that would have to be outlined, and even so, it could be proven when ties to a a given nation or organization are pointed out. There isn't any asterisks or footnoes that qualify and expand upon what has to be proven to the minute detail.



Getting a warrant before or after the fact covers them. What FISA language specifically says retroactive warrants.....aren't really warrants? The issue has to do with telecom cooperation in the absence of a warrant at all stages of a case.

I have been reading this thread with interest, and I haven't seen anyone address this argument, which (in my opinion) could be the key to the whole issue.

Why is everyone ignoring this? The targets are overseas. Not in the United States. In another country. Every screaming headline in the New York Times or whatever reads "Bush spies on US citizens" yada yada.

Besides the calls in question where one party is outside the country, is a suspected terrorist, and is calling into the USA, there is the other dimension. A judge ruled that the US government needs a warrant to wiretap overseas-to-overseas conversations if they pass through a US component. For example, Peter in Belarus is talking to Ahmed in Lebanon, both are using disposable phones, and the conversation is routed through an AT&T switching station. According to the 6th Circuit and others, this requires a warrant. I question the logic. This would be akin to saying that we could not break the codes of Japanese communications in WWII if those codes were transmitted over Western Union-owned telegraph lines or GE radio re-transmission stations.

CW- the problem is- if we allow them to tap phones on the domestic side- and they don't have any oversite- they we can't know if they are abusing thier powers- they just say "oh, that is classified" and that is the end of that.

Oversite is designed to prevent abuses- obviously, there are at least 40 cases of abuses of the power already.

If the CIA has probably cause- they can get a warrant, just like our republic has done for a hundred years.

The system works just fine, and it doesn't need to be tampered with in a manner that relieves the CIA of the "burden" of oversite- too bad, so sad. Do your darn job and shut up.

I am much more worried about our own secret services than I am about any "terrorist" threat.

There is no evidence that they are only tapping foriegn lines, and it looks like there are at least a few pieces of proof of domestic spying in about 40 legal cases winding through the system. Obviously, they are in the US, or they wouldn't have the jurisdiction or right to sue in US court.

The "only use it on furiners" argument is moot. They are obviously not limiting thier taps to foriegn entities.

1) Do you think this law makes the US "less safe" as GW says?
No. I think that we are more safe. I'm not some conspriacy theory nut but the FISA were put into place for reason. That reason was tricky Dick Nixon listening to his political enemies (and even MLK). I just don't like where that could lead us.

Just heard Conyers on CNN, and he said it best (paraphrasing just a little bit, as I can't remember every word of the exact quote) "it is irresponsible and untrue to suggest that we are less safe with no FISA law at all- law enforcement is perfectly capable of keeping us safe with the tools they have"

a hearty "hear hear" from me.

You don't need to torture to keep America safe, you don't need to end civil liberties to be safe.

Current interogation techniques and police techniques are what will win us the day.

Hell yea lets sue the hell out of those bad telcos right after 9/11 who tried to save American lives. The FOOLS – if they had just got their lawyers involved like Qwest there would have been no info shared for months at least. Let the terrorists talk – who cares.

Lets make it clear that that if you try to help your country you better wait and get a lawyers opinion, then wait for the warrant, then wait to be sure its legal and you won’t get sued to oblivion – no matter home many lives are lost – hell yea.

The reality is the President used his emergency powers right after 9/11 and the telcos gave him what he asked for. So sue Bush not them.

Oh yeah- we call that "fearmongering" there Ted. That is all it is- fearmongering.

"If you don't sign your civil liberties away you will be attacked by the terrorists- you better go out and buy some duct tape for the common good!"

We are protected just fine with what the CIA is allowed to do without the expired Nazi-like laws.

Glad to see you hold the Bill of Rightsd and the rule of law in such high esteem, Ted.

And contrary to your wild assertions, there's absolutely no need for the telcos to have "waited for a lawyers opinion" and "wait to make sure a warrant is legal". What are you waiting for? The opinion on turning over private customer info, and in allowing the government to tap into the entire domestic communications network has already been codified by law - you can't do it. Period. As to waiting to see if a warrant is valid? Well, let's see, since it would describe the persons to be tapped, and the phone numbers to provide, and would have been signed by, I don't know, a judge, it wouldn't take but a simple look at the paper to see whether or not it was valid.

The reality is, the President asking for the ability to wiretap an entire network, isn't a crime, if all they did was ask. But providing that information to the government without a warrant is:


http://www.thelegality.com/archives/26

Please, please tell me Ted, why anyone with that kind of potential liability would even consider putting their company in jeopardy, when the protection was so easy to obtain: "You want access to our networks? Sure. Show me the warrant". The short answer is, they wouldn't if they had any brains. But apparently Quest was the only company that had any brains.

Face it Ted, there was no obstruction to getting all of the information the government may have needed to wiretap people suspected of terrorist communications within the United States. FISA has refused to grant a warrant in all but about a dozen cases, in the more than 20 years it's been in existance. All the government and the telcos had to do was follow the law. No sir, this was nothing more than a blatant power-grab by this administration through the use of fear-mongering, and a total capitulation to it by the telcos in contravention to the Constitution, and the laws under which they were required to operate.

So, hell yeah. Let's sue the crap outta them. Next time, maybe they'll take their public trust, their jobs, and the law just a little more seriously.

Ex post facto laws are passed all the time, despite Art I, Sec 9. Just ask the oil and coal companies who were minding their own business in 1962, and who now have to spend billions to clean up what they were doing in 1962, which was perfectly legal at that time....



The problem with this entire debate, once it leaves academic levels, is that since 9-11, we have had no attacks on U.S. soil (for which Bush gets zero credit, I might add); we as citizens do not know how threats were located; we do not know how many threats were located; we do not know how close we've come to nuclear annihilation by stolen warhead in the belly of a ship in NY harbor; we have no idea how safe and secure information is when revealed to judge relative to a wiretap warrant relative to these terrorist operations. What we do know is the UK and Spain were both hit with al Qaeda terrorism during this time.

Considering how little we truly know about the actual process of terrorist interdiction, it is very hard to say, beyond some academic mutterings, exactly what the cause and effect of laws such as this one have been.

What can be said is that if something terrible does happen, as one poster said above, there will be h*ll to pay and many of our staunchest academic civil libertarians will be screaming the loudest about the failure of security.

This is a difficult situation, and I have much sympathy with the civil libertarian viewpoint, but....we have no idea, not really, what we are talking about "on the ground."

If you want to give Dubya credit for terrorist attacks on US soil, then you *must* include 9/11. Thus, zero US-soil attacks in 6+ years except for one huge attack. Give Dubya credit for no attacks since 9/11, you must give Dubya discredit for 9/11 as well. But wait, there's more...

Since this *is* supposed to be *global* war on terror, we must by definition include *global* statistics. When including the *globe* for the *global* war on terror, Dubya doesn't look great at all. We've had Madrid, London, Riyadh, Casablanca, Bali, Istanbul, Sharm el Sheikh, Sinai, Mombasa and Djerba. Let's not forget Russia and Israel who have seen stepped up terrorist attacks since 9/11.

Not a great track record for this *GWOT*. Unless you're saying it's a USWOT?

Is your middle name "specious"?

Your first argument: My statement was since 9/11, we've had not attacks. After 9/11, we stepped up security, part of which is this eavesdropping process, and it has worked. Your first argument is irrelevant to this discussion.

Your second argument: You bring up terrorism elsewhere in the world. Our eavesdropping law is designed to protect us. I'll let the leaders of UK, Spain, etc., worry about themselves. Our president should be worried about us, and his system has worked. Last time I checked, I do not vote for leaders of, nor am I assessed taxes by, these other govts. Your second argument is also irrelevant to this discussion.

You want to credit Dubya with stepped up security since 9/11. I understand this. You don't want to discredit Dubya for 9/11. I don't understand this.


Then, you believe we are not engaged in a GWOT? If this is the case, then I fully expect you to withdraw your support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq since Iraq *is* ostensibly justified in the name of GWOT.

The head of the CIA was on the air today talking about the surveillance issue. Part of the problem is you need probable cause to get a warrant – so if you want to listen to 2 people overseas you suspect are terrorists and you need a warren to get the info to show that – you never get the warrant.

If we want to shoot someone over what happened after 9/11 – shoot the government not companies that tried to help



Fools trying to save lives. Better let the terrorists win a few – to keep everybody honest. Then we can have millions of $$$ in "hearings" where we learn all the problems with the time it takes to get “warrants” – as in the laptop the FISA court did not let the FBI see – the one with the 9/11 plan in it. How much did that cost?

So, what you seem to be saying Ted, is that you think the government should be able to spy on any form of communications that is not limited to strictly American soil. Is that right?

They have 72 hours after the fact to get a warrant. So, if they suspect communications is terrorist related, who is the terrorist? Do you think they get a warrant for every form of communication from Osama Bin Laden? Or wouldn't one warrant - much like what's done in our legal system - cover all types of surveillance regarding a suspect?

My problem is, if they have no idea whether a phone call is related to a specific terrorist, they are fishing. There is no "probable cause" because it's closer to "maybe cause". Once we surrender that liberty - removing "probable" from the government's powers - it never goes back. Before long, the government will never need probable cause because we've already established they operate legally without it.

Ted, that much government in our lives should scare you. So, I'm beginning to think that either you're really not a conservative or don't really believe what you say and choose to be on your side of the argument for fun. I can't hazard a guess, but I will ask - how big does our government have to be or how much power should we give our government before you call foul? Our government has grown bigger than all other administrations combined and has more unchecked power than any other period in history. But this still within your limits. How big do you think it should be able to get?