Broke the law? Just change it!

[superstition]

just in: a new 'compromise' FISA Bill (PDF) (http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/FISAINTRO_001_xml.pdf) was just made public, which, the Electronic Frontier Foundation reports, 'contains blanket immunity for telecoms (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/06/eff-obtains-new-fisa-bill-containing-telecom-immun) that helped the NSA break the law and spy on millions of ordinary Americans.' The House vote is tomorrow, June 20. After all the secret (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060412-6585.html) rooms (http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/06/20/another-att-secret-room-revealed/) and everything ... if they get immunity and the public never finds out what happened, the only other logical next step is to convince everyone I know not to get an iPhone.

CNN covers (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/19/congress.wiretap/index.html) this get-out-of-lawsuit play as well

Rretroactive immunity should probably be banned via an amendment to the Constitution. It's the height of corruption to make law-breaking attractive by cutting deals with the government to change the laws later.

[Enlightened Coelacanth]

I have a problem with this notion that the government spied on
"millions of ordinary citizens". Mainly because that just isn't so.

Efforts to monitor the phone calls of suspected terrorists originating from foreign sources or call lines routed through the U.S. are very specific and necessarily very specific, either in scope or in purpose, because there is no use or not enough time to monitor millions of useless ordinary phone calls between non terrorists.
In other words, it's a stupid waste of time to monitor non essential phone calls when trying to thwart terrorists. It's as stupid as looking for elephants in Antarctica. They just aren't there. So why look?

[superstition]

A long-winded way of saying "don't worry if you have nothing to hide", eh?

The bottom line is that the executive branch colluded with corporations to break the law and punished the one that didn't go along (Qwest). Now, the government is trying to pay back their partners is crime by changing the law to protect them.

You didn't address the most basic issue here, which is the issue of being able to break the law because of the knowledge that the law will be changed later on your behalf. That is a mockery of justice, is it not?

[Enlightened Coelacanth]

I think this is a move to immunize cooperating communications companies from possible law suits. I don't think it's a given that that is an admission that laws were definitely broken, according to my understanding. It's more like an insurance policy.

[superstition]

I think this is a move to immunize cooperating communications companies from possible law suits.
Yes?
I don't think it's a given that that is an admission that laws were definitely broken, according to my understanding. It's more like an insurance policy.
If the laws change to make it legal, why admit anything?

[albino smurf]

The only people that need immunity are people that have broken the law. It is sad when the executive branch, who's stated purpose is to uphold our laws continually try to change them to suit their own purposes.

[superstition]

Here we go again.

Rep. Steny Hoyer is leading a "compromise" on the FISA reauthorization bill that would ultimately let the Bush administration and their friends at AT&T and Verizon off the hook for illegally spying on innocent Americans.

Last night, this so-called compromise was voted out of committee and as early as this morning the bill may be brought to the House floor for a full vote.

Speaker Pelosi can still stop this bill.

As Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi can pull the bill from the floor and refuse to call a vote.

Call Speaker Pelosi right now and demand she stand up to President Bush and stop telecom immunity.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
(202) 225-0100

Suggested Script:
"I'm calling to tell Speaker Pelosi I am depending on her to pull any bill from the floor that will ultimately grant immunity to telecommunications companies who illegally spied on Americans. Can I count on Speaker Pelosi to stand up to President Bush?"

Here is what Senator Russ Fiengold said about this bill last night:
"The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation.  The House and Senate should not be taking up this bill, which effectively guarantees immunity for telecom companies alleged to have participated in the President's illegal program, and which fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home."

Senator Leahy also made his position clear:
"I will oppose this new FISA bill when the Senate votes on it next week. We must do everything we can to protect Americans from the Bush-Cheney Administration's erosion of our civil liberties and callous disregard for the rule of law -- and this new FISA bill fails that test."
I've received these e-mails about calling politicians before. Only one has ever had a number that worked, but it was one of them I called concerning this actual issue. It seems clear to me that the resistance will be broken down and the crooks will win. It's just too easy to insert things and pass things with stealth in our system.

[tzinc]

Rretroactive immunity is a JOKE! American society is becoming more F@#$ING INSANE by the minute! Just when I think I have heard of everything dirty and illegal and immoral they come up with something new. UNFRIGGING BELIEVABLE!

[superstition]

As I predicated, the House caved. The Senate clearly will pass retroactive immunity again. It was only the House that blocked it before.

[Swissv2]

So the govt. official said to the fellow citizen "You need to give me money for the safety I am providing for you from rampaging african elephants."

Citizen: "What elephants?"

Official: "Exactly, so thats why you need to give me money to continue to keep you safe from them."

[malakas]

From the title I thought this was a thread about Berlusconi..

[TennisNB]

My biggest concern is that we are moving closer to a law that would enable cops to listen in on phone calls to found out about their stupid little investigations.

Warrantless wiretapping is like every other tool the big agencies use and then pass down. Once it becomes normal for the CIA to be doing it, local rent a cops will want it too.

[Swissv2]

My biggest concern is that we are moving closer to a law that would enable cops to listen in on phone calls to found out about their stupid little investigations.

Warrantless wiretapping is like every other tool the big agencies use and then pass down. Once it becomes normal for the CIA to be doing it, local rent a cops will want it too.

All for our "safety" eh? :rolleyes:

[superstition]

Glenn Greenwald, writing in Salon, describes the effect of the immunity clause this way: 'So all the Attorney General has to do is recite those magic words — the President requested this eavesdropping and did it in order to save us from the Terrorists — and the minute he utters those words, the courts are required to dismiss the lawsuits against the telecoms, no matter how illegal their behavior was.'"
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/19/telecom/index.html

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/06/rebublican-senators-its-about-immunity

Rebublican Senators: It's About Immunity
Posted by Hugh D'Andrade

The dangerous and unconstitutional FISA bill coming up before the House Friday appears to have support, with Speaker Pelosi describing it as a "balanced bill".

The bill is far from balanced when it comes to immunity for telecoms, as the bill was written to guarantee dismissal -- a fact the Speaker's Republican colleagues are quite up front about:

House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., and Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo., said the only result that could occur from a court review of the lawsuits against the companies would be that plaintiffs would be prevented from pursuing the cases. ... "The lawsuits will be dismissed, and we feel comfortable that the standard of evidence that the law requires will be easily met," Blunt said.

In addition to targeting EFF's lawsuit, these two Missouri legislators would also be throwing the State of Missouri out of court. The Missouri Public Utilities Commission was seeking information to determine if the telecoms violated the privacy of Missouri customers. It appears that protecting the pocketbooks of telecom companies was more important to Blunt and Bond than the privacy of their constituents.

[superstition]

IT: 1 In 3 Sysadmins Snoop On Colleagues

According to a a recent survey, one in three IT staff snoops on colleagues.

U.S. information security company Cyber-Ark surveyed 300 senior IT professionals, and found that one-third admitted to secretly snooping, while 47 percent said they had accessed information that was not relevant to their role.

This makes one wonder about the other 2 out of 3. Did they lie on the survey or really don't snoop?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25263009/

[superstition]

Obama will filibuster, and so will two other senators, but will it matter? The Senate already passed this and it was sent to the House and rejected. Now the House has passed it so it doesn't look likely that it will stop in the Senate. People really need to contact their senators now.

Over the last 8 months, you and I have stopped Congress from granting retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies who illegally spied on Americans for the Bush administration -- at least three times.

On Friday, Democratic Leadership in the House of Representatives decided to stand with President Bush instead of with America. They voted for a so-called "compromise" to let AT&T, Verizon and the entire Bush administration off the hook for lying to America and illegally tapping our phone calls.

If this bill passes the Senate, then Americans will never be able to hold President Bush accountable for warrantless wiretapping.

We need to take action to stop this horrible bill. Last time immunity came up for a Senate vote, Senators Dodd, Feingold and Obama each said they would filibuster to stop it from passing. They will need 60 votes to keep a filibuster going and stop the Senate from caving to pressure to support this fake "compromise".

[superstition]

Money from telecoms for switchers

Maplight.org indicating that those Democratic representatives who changed their vote on telecom immunity between March and June received on average 40% more in contributions from telecom interests than those Democrats who held firm. Maplight asks, "Why did these ninety-four House members have a change of heart? Their constituents deserve answers."

Across both parties, representatives who voted for immunity in June had received almost twice a much telecom money as those who voted against. Wired's coverage includes a quote from Larry Lessig, who is on the Maplight board: "Money corrupts the process of reasoning. [Lawmakers] get a sixth sense of how what they do might affect how they raise money."

http://www.maplight.org/FISA_June08
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/telecom-amnesty.html

news of a delayed vote (failed filibuster attempt aside) on the updated FISA bill which has been discussed here recently, in particular because it would grant telecom companies immunity (under certain conditions) from suits for wiretapping conducted at government request. According to the Associated Press story carried by the Washington Post,

"Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and more than a dozen other senators who oppose telecom immunity threw up procedural delays that threatened to force the Senate into a midnight or weekend session. The prospect of further delays was enough to cause Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to postpone the vote until after the weeklong July 4 vacation."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR2008062603317.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/25/congress.surveillance/

Wiretapping (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=206182)

[superstition]

There's a DFA petition opposing the get out of jail free bill.

http://ga1.org/ct/OpwrF5417X_M/

[Enlightened Coelacanth]

Obama will filibuster, and so will two other senators, but will it matter? The Senate already passed this and it was sent to the House and rejected. Now the House has passed it so it doesn't look likely that it will stop in the Senate. People really need to contact their senators now.Yes, please tell your elected representatives that you want terrorists to have the unfettered ability to plot your death and subjugation
and that you don't want our intelligence community to be able to listen to calls from known foreign terrorist sources outside this nation to allies within this country (or on phone lines routed through this nation).

Furthermore please let your representatives know that you want CAIR and the ACLU to be able to sue the bejebus out of telecom companies that helped foil terrorism and save American lives.
Rest assured I'll be burning up my phone lines. I just hope George Bush isn't listening in. He's the real evil in this world, you know.
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/15/how-many-lawyers-does-it-take-to-rescue-our-soldiers/

[alienhamster]

Yes, please tell your elected representatives that you want terrorists to have the unfettered ability to plot your death and subjugation
and that you don't want our intelligence community to be able to listen to calls from known foreign terrorist sources outside this nation to allies within this country (or on phone lines routed through this nation).

Furthermore please let your representatives know that you want CAIR and the ACLU to be able to sue the bejebus out of telecom companies that helped foil terrorism and save American lives.
Rest assured I'll be burning up my phone lines. I just hope George Bush isn't listening in. He's the real evil in this world, you know.
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/15/how-many-lawyers-does-it-take-to-rescue-our-soldiers/
Straw man, anyone?

No one is arguing for disallowing the intelligence community to monitor suspected communications in order to thwart terrorism. It's about establishing court-approved reasons to spy on specific individuals and to protect American citizens from their government having random access to their communications. The 4th Amendment is there for a reason, to keep the President or whomever from arbitraily determining who's worthy of being monitored.

And telecom "immunity" shouldn't be neccessary. If a company broke the law, they broke the law. Period. If a civil lawsuit is bogus or unfounded, the courts can throw it out. But you shouldn't be able to change the law in retrospect, especially when it's something foundational in the Constitution.

That being said, I think the left is freaking out too much on this issue. The Patriot Act is probably more troubling as a whole, and I didn't see anywhere near as much criticism and hand-wringing back then. Still, I don't understand why conservatives aren't more concerned about this, seeing that the 4th Amendment is somewhat at stake, and this is more "Big Brother is watching you" than any tax policy.

[superstition]

That being said, I think the left is freaking out too much on this issue. The Patriot Act is probably more troubling as a whole
Straw man, anyone?

10 characters.

[Enlightened Coelacanth]

Straw man, anyone?

No one is arguing for disallowing the intelligence community to monitor suspected communications in order to thwart terrorism. It's about establishing court-approved reasons to spy on specific individuals and to protect American citizens from their government having random access to their communications. The 4th Amendment is there for a reason, to keep the President or whomever from arbitraily determining who's worthy of being monitored.

And telecom "immunity" shouldn't be neccessary. If a company broke the law, they broke the law. Period. If a civil lawsuit is bogus or unfounded, the courts can throw it out. But you shouldn't be able to change the law in retrospect, especially when it's something foundational in the Constitution.

That being said, I think the left is freaking out too much on this issue. The Patriot Act is probably more troubling as a whole, and I didn't see anywhere near as much criticism and hand-wringing back then. Still, I don't understand why conservatives aren't more concerned about this, seeing that the 4th Amendment is somewhat at stake, and this is more "Big Brother is watching you" than any tax policy.
http://www.zombietime.com/al-haramain_surveillance/
I would recommend this for background material. This all comes down to a slippery slope argument with regards to civil rights.
In this case, Al-Haramain, there is no doubt that a "charity organization" in Oregon was a front group for Al Qaeda and the money collected wound up helping to kill innocents in other parts of the globe.

Through the proper identification of this group as a terrorist front, government agents were able to wiretap their communications and run them out of business. I don't have time to go into all this as it's tremendously complicated.
Would Na*zi spies during WW2 have their case thrown out of court if FBI agents didn't follow the exact letter of the law? I doubt it.

[Supernatural_Serve]

I am so busy guarding the government from reaching into my wallet and a variety of personal invasion threats like local police doing whatever they want claiming "cause", that I don't have the time, energy, or inclination to care if some computer reaches into my phone.

[superstition]

I am so busy guarding the government from reaching into my wallet and a variety of personal invasion threats like local police doing whatever they want claiming "cause", that I don't have the time, energy, or inclination to care if some computer reaches into my phone.
Death by 1000 cuts, eh?

[superstition]

Call Senator Reid right now and demand he pull the FISA "compromise" bill which will lead to retroactive immunity for telecommunication companies who spied on Americans. 



Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
Washington DC: 202-224-3542 



If the DC number is busy - Try reaching his district offices:

Reno Office: 775-686-5750
Vegas Office: 702-388-5020

Suggested script:
"I'm calling to ask Senate Majority Leader Reid to pull the FISA so-called "compromise" bill from the floor which will give retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies who broke the law." 



This is it. We have stopped President Bush from getting his way and letting AT&T and Verizon of the hook four times. 



It is up to us to stop it again.
I'm going to call, even though it won't prevent this from going through.

[alienhamster]

I'm going to call, even though it won't prevent this from going through.
I wrote my Senator a while back and mentioned the telcom immunity thing explicitly, and they completely pretended like they weren't voting for telcom immunity (even though they are ON RECORD for voting for the crappy version of FISA).

I do think if enough people make phone calls, it can make a difference. But it's got to be an overwhelming number. I'm mad that the press isn't talking about this at all.

In any case, it will be tested by the Supreme Court at some point. And hopefully before then they will correct these mistakes.

Thanks for posting a thread on the issue.

[superstition]

an Ars analysis of the FISA bill of which the telecom immunity provision has been getting all the attention. Timothy B. Lee enumerates the ways in which the bill loosens current protections on domestic wiretapping and opens up whole new areas to government eavesdropping.

"The legislation eliminates meaningful judicial oversight of eavesdropping between Americans citizen and foreigners located overseas and effectively legalizes dragnet surveillance of domestic-to-foreign traffic. It stretches out the judicial review process so much that the government will in many cases be able to complete its surveillance activities before the courts finish deciding on its legality."

http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/fisa-compromise.ars


"With the telecoms all but assured of amnesty for their participation in illegal spying, there's now one last amendment in their way — the Bingaman amendment. Because President Bush is unwilling to sign FISA reform without immunity, and because Blue Dog Democrats fear for their reelection unless FISA reform as a whole passes, most compromise positions are already off the table. So the new amendment seeks to sidestep part of the problem by moving it to a later date. It would put the court cases and amnesty provision on hold until a report is completed detailing exactly what happened, allowing Congress to consider denying amnesty at that time. There's an EFF campaign to support both this and the Dodd-Feingold amendment, which would strip immunity altogether."

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/07/telecom-amnesty.html?cid=121444500

https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?alertId=389&pg=makeACall

two updates

[superstition]

Our lovely telecom friends are doing even more to improve our culture!

Telecoms Suing Municipalities That Plan Broadband Access

Law.com has up a review of ongoing and historical cases of telecoms suing municipalities that plan broadband networks. In many cases those same telecoms have spent years ignoring as potential customers the cities and towns now undertaking Net infrastructure projects, only to turn around and sue them. One lawyer who has defended many municipalities in this position says, "This is similar to electrification a century ago when small towns and rural areas were left behind, so they formed their own authorities." Bob Frankston has been writing for years (http://www.frankston.com/public/) about the financial model of artificial scarcity that underlies the telecoms businss plans. This post (http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/2008/06/sort/time_rev/page/5/entry/23:209/20080615174211:D20B49C8-3B23-11DD-91F9-D01157A607E7/) gives some of the background to the telecoms' fear of abundance.

http://www.law.com/jsp/legaltechnology/pubArticleLT.jsp?id=1202422769174&rss=ltn

[alienhamster]

I can't tell if I was right or wrong earlier for saying that the left is freaking out about this too much. Personally, I am getting more and more worried about this legislation. It's just so disgustingly anti-Constitutional, and I'm really disappointed in how much press the second amendment gets while the 4th is being almost completely ignored. Where the heck is the public debate on this?

It's gonna pass tomorrow, probably. My only hope is that this gets taken to the Supreme Court and Scalia decides to be a literalist this time. I have little faith in him, but maybe they will strike this BS down. Congress just keeps giving the President more and more power decade by decade, and that's NOT a good thing.

[superstition]

My only hope is that this gets taken to the Supreme Court and Scalia decides to be a literalist this time. I have little faith in him, but maybe they will strike this BS down. Congress just keeps giving the President more and more power decade by decade, and that's NOT a good thing.
Don't put your faith in Scalia. He's the Colin Powell of the Supreme Court. He's given far too much credit for his surface identity (the staunch protector of the literal Constitution) and far too little for his actual jurisprudence (political activist who trades in F.U.D. like the "gay agenda").

[superstition]

Senate passes retroactive immunity, eavesdropping changes (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080709/ap_on_bi_ge/terrorist_surveillance)

...bowing to President Bush's demand to protect telecommunications companies from lawsuits complaining they helped the U.S. spy on Americans.

"This president broke the law," declared Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis.

Most members are still forbidden to know the details of the classified effort, and some objected that they were being asked to grant immunity to the telecoms without first knowing what they did.

Just under a third of the Senate, including Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, supported an amendment that would have stripped immunity from the bill. They were defeated on a 66-32 vote. Republican rival John McCain did not attend the vote. Obama ended up voting for the final bill, as did Specter. Feingold voted no.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a California civil rights organization, intends to challenge the constitutionality of the immunity provision.

The bill also would allow the government to obtain broad, yearlong intercept orders from the FISA court that target foreign groups and people, raising the prospect that communications with innocent Americans would be swept in. The original FISA law required the government to get wiretapping warrants for each individual targeted from inside the United States, on the rationale that most communications inside the U.S. would involve Americans whose civil liberties must be protected.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is party to some of the lawsuits that will now be dismissed, said the bill was "a blatant assault upon civil liberties and the right to privacy."

The long fight on Capitol Hill centered on one main question: whether to shield from civil lawsuits any telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop on American phone and computer lines without the permission or knowledge of a secret court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The lawsuits center on allegations that the White House circumvented U.S. law by going around the FISA court, which was created 30 years ago to prevent the government from abusing its surveillance powers for political purposes, as was done in the Vietnam War and Watergate eras. The measure effectively dismisses about 40 lawsuits that have been bundled together.

[alienhamster]

Sigh. Barely a stir, even in this forum, on the passage of FISA today.

Where are all the libertarians? This should be a like a dagger to the heart for them.

[Enlightened Coelacanth]

I think you are using a "slippery slope" argument with respect to civil rights by criticizing the now enhanced ability to monitor the communications of terrorists and their sympathizers and enablers. You are extending that ability to then spy on average U.S. citizens when there is no reason to think there is any reason to do so (except in an abstract future scenario where FISA laws would have no applicability in the case of U.S. citizens anyway).

Most abuses of the FISA law that I am aware of were strictly technical ones (like having the ability to listen into terrorist conversations on phone lines that were routed through the U.S. but not originating from the U.S. for instance). I wish someone could supply me with a list of how Bush actually broke the law, so I could see for myself the damages done to the 4th amendment.

This sort of pro forma harassment, by CAIR, the ACLU or any of the other "civil liberties" lobby, of anything Bush does doesn't do a thing to enhance our security or our liberties.

As I've said, I've yet to see a listing of laws broken by Bush, in this matter. It's apparent he broke FISA court laws in order to engage in the sort of surveillance I posted about before, in the case of the Hamas front group posing as a "charity" in Oregon.
Are we safer because the ACLU has opposed shutting this group down? Are our rights less secure,except in some theoretical slippery slope scenario?

For me I've yet to see where our rights have significantly been
threatened by these changes in law or how they were in jeopardy before. But I'm willing to listen.

[superstition]

snip
If laws weren't broken, why did Bush require telecom immunity, saying that he'd veto any form of the bill without it? Why weren't the lawsuits allowed to fizzle, if they're meritless?

Plus, we're not just talking about retroactive immunity. There are expansions of wiretapping power.

[Enlightened Coelacanth]

I mentioned at least twice in my post that Bush must have broken FISA laws, or else why the new bill? You should read other's posts sometimes.
Can you list where and how he broke the law? I want to know how
my rights were trampled on

[superstition]

I mentioned at least twice in my post that Bush must have broken FISA laws, or else why the new bill? You should read other's posts sometimes. Can you list where and how he broke the law? I want to know how my rights were trampled on
I guess you should read the articles.

[Enlightened Coelacanth]

If your link worked I might do that. But since you are reporting this outrage, I was hoping you might actually know, in a useful informative way, how laws were violated.

I guess not.

[superstition]

If your link worked I might do that. But since you are reporting this outrage, I was hoping you might actually know, in a useful informative way, how laws were violated. I guess not.
It's really mysterious!

[Enlightened Coelacanth]

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/07/11/what-warrantless-wiretapping-hath-wrought/
It's becoming less mysterious.

[GPB]

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/the_worst_of_all_worlds_1007

grr...