Telecom immunity? FISA Amendments Act?

[Fraggle145]

:confused:

So I just got this email from a friend of mine asking me to email my senators etc... about this amendment that is up for vote in the Senate (apparently it has passed the house).

Can someone explain what the FISA Amendments Act is?

Apparently there are three potential amendments to the bill that are up for consideration in the senate tomorrow...

from the information he supplied me I get:



http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/06/bingaman-amendment

The current version of the Senate bill calls for an investigation into the President's warrantless wiretapping program by the Inspectors General of the Department of Justice and other US government intelligence agencies. The IG investigation, while no substitute for an independent court ruling, is likely to uncover some of the details of the program that the White House has been trying to suppress.

Unfortunately, the current bill puts the cart before the horse, by granting immunity from the law to phone companies before the investigation has even begun. If the Senate is resolved to pass legislation granting immunity, it it ought to at least know what conduct it's immunizing — It should give itself an opportunity to revisit the issue after it has the IG Report in hand.

the 3 amendments

One amendment, from Senators Dodd and Leahy, would strip immunity from the bill altogether.

A second, from Senator Specter [PDF], would would allow the court to deny immunity if it found that the government's surveillance activities were unconstitutional.

The Bingaman amendment would prevent Congress from granting immunity in the dark, as described in the press yesterday, by "stay[ing] pending cases against the telecoms and delay[ing] the effective date of any immunity provisions until 90 days after Congress received a report from the inspectors general of the intelligence agencies on the warrantless surveillance program". By placing a temporary hold on immunity and on the litigation until 90 days after the IG Report is submitted to Congress, the simple amendment would give Congress and the American people an opportunity to revisit the issue of telco immunity next year, in light of the audit's findings.

My friend then said:

If you still aren't conviced, remember:

They can still spy for good reasons, they just have to have a warrant.

If they need to spy without a warrant, the current law allows them to in emergency situations, they just have to get the warrant later.

"Those who can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
–Benjamin Franklin

So I guess I'm asking is all of this correct? I am not up to date on the current spying laws and what not. Obviously this website has its biases etc...

And then I guess I'm asking what do you think: Should they get immunity? If they do get it will we find out what information they provided? If they get immunity what are the chances they'd do it again?

:pop:

[SoonerInKCMO]

If removing immunity doesn't impede the investigation, then I think they should have immunity removed from the bill as Dodd and Leahy propose.

[Sooner24]

So I guess the AT&T's Verizons and so on should just go tell the government to go screw yourself we're not going to help or try to figure out what the courts are going to decide later?

[SoonerInKCMO]

:confused: Are you saying that you're thinking that's what I'm saying?

[Vaevictis]

I think what the telcos should do is follow the law.

It's not very hard. My understanding:

Government comes and asks for a tap. Telco complies. Government then has a certain number of days to get a warrant. If government doesn't provide a warrant after that time period, telco is supposed to stop complying.

If you can't get a warrant for the tap after a certain number of days, you don't have any business executing the tap. Sorry. The law is and was totally reasonable in this regard.

[OklahomaTuba]

If you can't get a warrant for the tap after a certain number of days, you don't have any business executing the tap. Sorry. The law is and was totally reasonable in this regard.

Days????

That helps when calls can be made in seconds, not days.

Its a good bill. Its keeping everyone safe, allows the telecom companies to help the gubment without being subject to the commies @ the ACLU suing their pants off, and helps to track down terrorists.

The donks did a good thing here.

[Vaevictis]

Days????

That helps when calls can be made in seconds, not days.

As I said, in order:

1. Government goes to telco and orders a tap.
2. Telco complies and provides tap.
3. Government then has a certain number of days to produce a warrant, during which the time the tap is in place and the government is collecting intelligence.
4. If the government fails to produce a warrant at the end of the time period, THEN the telco has to cut them off.

In no way does the warrant requirement interfere with the ability for the government to rapidly execute taps.

It does, however, require the government to justify the need to a judge after the fact in order to continue the tap.

[Vaevictis]

Seriously, I just don't get this urge some of you so-called 'conservatives' have to heap additional powers, unchecked by any other branch, on the executive.

I'm a so-called 'lib' and even I can see why this is a bad idea.

[mdklatt]

Seriously, I just don't get this urge some of you so-called 'conservatives' have to heap additional powers, unchecked by any other branch, on the executive.


Just wait for the conservatives squeal like a stuck pig when Democrats take over and start using all these new powers ginned up by the Bush administration. I'm hoping for a Republican Congress and a Democrat White House. Partly because I think having one party in control is a bad, bad thing, but mostly because I want to see the reaction when Obama issues a signing statement about how he's not going to follow a law passed by Congress. Good times.

[OklahomaTuba]

Seriously, I just don't get this urge some of you so-called 'conservatives' have to heap additional powers, unchecked by any other branch, on the executive.

I'm a so-called 'lib' and even I can see why this is a bad idea.

How the hell is giving companies that help the government fight terrorism some protection adding any unchecked power to the executive branch? FBI uses this same thing everyday to fight crimes.

[OklahomaTuba]

In no way does the warrant requirement interfere with the ability for the government to rapidly execute taps.

Execute the tap, no.

Execute the lead gained from the tap, it did interfere.

In the old law, it didn't allow the Government to take any action with that intelligence from the tap until after a FISA judge ruled on it. Now, they can take action as soon as they discover something without waiting on some judge for a couple of day. In seconds, not days.

Common sense should tell you why this might be a good idea.

[soonerscuba]

Just wait for the conservatives squeal like a stuck pig when Democrats take over and start using all these new powers ginned up by the Bush administration. I'm hoping for a Republican Congress and a Democrat White House. Partly because I think having one party in control is a bad, bad thing, but mostly because I want to see the reaction when Obama issues a signing statement about how he's not going to follow a law passed by Congress. Good times.
I have said this for 7 years. You think George Bush likes government intrusiveness? Wait until a Dem takes the reigns, Republicans will rue the day they ever called for a unitary executive. Really, which a bigger threat to the average American, terrorism or gun violence by US citizens? Don't think for a second that a Dem isn't going have this cross their mind and use their new fangled powers to do some very, very bad things to US citizens in the name of "protection".

Personally, I believe that the telecoms deserve immunity this time. But, in the future need to be compliant with use surveillance law or risk culpability.

[Jerk]

...and use their new fangled powers to do some very, very bad things to US citizens in the name of "protection".


...like wut?

[Scott D]

for you, it'd obviously be taking your guns away ;)

[Jerk]

for you, it'd obviously be taking your guns away ;)

What guns? I lost them all in a tragic boating accident this Fourth of July :mad:

[Vaevictis]

How the hell is giving companies that help the government fight terrorism some protection adding any unchecked power to the executive branch? FBI uses this same thing everyday to fight crimes.

The telcos had the ability to acquire an ironclad defense against liability. The FISA law provides for it -- the AG is legally obliged to provide a sworn statement to the effect that the taps being requested are in compliance with the law.

This is not difficult to ask for, nor is it difficult to provide if the taps are legal.

The fact is, the only reason not to ask for or provide the sworn statement is if you know the taps are illegal.

If you knowingly break the law, I see no reason why you shouldn't have to stand in front of a jury and explain yourself. If you had justification, the jury can always choose to acquit, or even award $1 damages.

[Vaevictis]

...like wut?

Aide: Well, hell, Mr. President, those guys down in Oklahoma and Texas keep saying that they're keeping the guns so that they can overthrow the government if they have to.

President: Well hell, those sound like terrists to me. What can we do?

Aide: Well, thanks to the precedents set by your predecessor GW Bush, we can tap their phone lines and engage in other surveillance, and fish for reasons to put them in jail without having to justify it to a court. Hell, we probably don't even have to follow the existing law, flimsy as it is, because the last time someone beat the table with the word terrorist, Congress gave everyone involved immunity. Just remind the corps of that, and they'll probably go even further.

President: Well, why would we want to tap their lines?

Aide: Well just about everybody breaks the law here and there. Sometimes they do silly stuff like buy stuff on Amazon.com and don't pay their state sales tax. I bet that's a felony in some states.

President: Well, what does that get us?

Aide: Why, once you convict them of a felony, you can take away their guns.


Okay, so that's a little tin-foil-hatty, but you get the idea.

[Jerk]

Yeah, wouldn't surprise me if a Democrat did that.

[Jerk]

Wait, didn't the same Supreme Court which said that Heller has a constitutional right to own a gun for self-defense also say that Bush can't do all those evil things?

Although, I really don't think that the Bill of Rights necessarily applies to enemy combatants on foreign battlefields, but I can see how everyone should have some sort of due process, which is what the military tribunals are for.

[StoopTroup]

I like my Fisa Card but I get a better rate and lots more airline miles on my Fastercard.

[Vaevictis]

Personally, I don't have a problem with holding enemy combatants indefinitely, nor with sitting their asses in front of a military tribunal... if we are at war.

I really, really don't like setting the precedent that the President can do this stuff absent a declaration of war from Congress. We are technically at peace, and if these precedents stand, the office of the President is likely to retain these powers in times of peace -- in perpetuity.

Now ask yourself -- if you were a President that was hell-bent on tyranny, isn't this the kind of stuff you'd just love to have? The ability to wiretap your enemies without any kind of oversight? The ability to gulag your enemies by waving around the 'enemy combatant' label and thereby ensuring that they have no access to civilian courts? (remembering that even the military can be turned, which is why so many folks want their guns, right?)

It's not *this* President I'm so much worried about. It's the fact that perpetuity is a very long time, and I'm sure that sooner or later, we're going to get a President who really wants to do bad things, and this administration is putting tools in place for him to do so.

[StoopTroup]

I don't know why we don't toss em all in a woodchipper and send them Home.

[yermom]

Personally, I don't have a problem with holding enemy combatants indefinitely, nor with sitting their asses in front of a military tribunal... if we are at war.

I really, really don't like setting the precedent that the President can do this stuff absent a declaration of war from Congress. We are technically at peace, and if these precedents stand, the office of the President is likely to retain these powers in times of peace -- in perpetuity.

Now ask yourself -- if you were a President that was hell-bent on tyranny, isn't this the kind of stuff you'd just love to have? The ability to wiretap your enemies without any kind of oversight? The ability to gulag your enemies by waving around the 'enemy combatant' label and thereby ensuring that they have no access to civilian courts? (remembering that even the military can be turned, which is why so many folks want their guns, right?)

It's not *this* President I'm so much worried about. It's the fact that perpetuity is a very long time, and I'm sure that sooner or later, we're going to get a President who really wants to do bad things, and this administration is putting tools in place for him to do so.

as much as the conservatives gripe about "big government" they sure love to give them more power

[Chuck Bao]

Agree. If we willingly concede our rights, we may never get them back again. An open-ended war on terror has no armistice.

Of course, the war on drugs is a much better reason because it affects some many of us, our family and friends.

And, the war on child pornography should be a high priority. All decent people hate that and aggressive surveillance on everyone who uses the web is justified.

Besides that, single men who own cats should be investigated for their political views.

And, then there are women who play golf.

We could take it a step further and just start monitoring all emails and phone calls from Denver. We can safely assume that tree huggers are not patriotic Americans.

[Jerk]

Personally, I don't have a problem with holding enemy combatants indefinitely, nor with sitting their asses in front of a military tribunal... if we are at war.

I really, really don't like setting the precedent that the President can do this stuff absent a declaration of war from Congress. We are technically at peace, and if these precedents stand, the office of the President is likely to retain these powers in times of peace -- in perpetuity.

Now ask yourself -- if you were a President that was hell-bent on tyranny, isn't this the kind of stuff you'd just love to have? The ability to wiretap your enemies without any kind of oversight? The ability to gulag your enemies by waving around the 'enemy combatant' label and thereby ensuring that they have no access to civilian courts? (remembering that even the military can be turned, which is why so many folks want their guns, right?)

It's not *this* President I'm so much worried about. It's the fact that perpetuity is a very long time, and I'm sure that sooner or later, we're going to get a President who really wants to do bad things, and this administration is putting tools in place for him to do so.

Well said. Bravo!

But I agree with StoopTroop.

Wood chipper, feet first.

[Okla-homey]

I dunno. I see both sides of the issue. But for me, I don't have any "expectation of privacy" when I'm on a cell phone. But that's just me. I realize others do and we have plenty of case law that says you do.

[Blue]

And they want to know what you're watching on youtube...

http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/110442

[Jerk]

I dunno. I see both sides of the issue. But for me, I don't have any "expectation of privacy" when I'm on a cell phone. But that's just me. I realize others do and we have plenty of case law that says you do.

Not that I don't like having the protections afforded by the Constitution, but I also figure that they would get pretty bored with my phone calls. I don't spend a lot of time talking about blowing stuff up or flying airplanes into buildings. It's usually stuff like, "Hey, dude, got any beer?"

[Vaevictis]

Not that I don't like having the protections afforded by the Constitution, but I also figure that they would get pretty bored with my phone calls. I don't spend a lot of time talking about blowing stuff up or flying airplanes into buildings. It's usually stuff like, "Hey, dude, got any beer?"

Yeah, but wiretapping you personally isn't the whole of the game.

How do you think J Edgar Hoover stayed in power so dang long?

[SoonerKnight]

Days????

That helps when calls can be made in seconds, not days.

Its a good bill. Its keeping everyone safe, allows the telecom companies to help the gubment without being subject to the commies @ the ACLU suing their pants off, and helps to track down terrorists.

The donks did a good thing here.

Yes, days after they have already started spying. Getting a warrant to do a search which this essentially is espeacially when your talking about getting incriminating evidence against someone and expecting the court to allow you to use that information. A warrant take little effort on the part of law enforcement and is part of the bill of rights! Which was put in place to protect us from the government!!!! SHEESH!!!

[Scott D]

Personally, I don't have a problem with holding enemy combatants indefinitely, nor with sitting their asses in front of a military tribunal... if we are at war.

I really, really don't like setting the precedent that the President can do this stuff absent a declaration of war from Congress. We are technically at peace, and if these precedents stand, the office of the President is likely to retain these powers in times of peace -- in perpetuity.

Now ask yourself -- if you were a President that was hell-bent on tyranny, isn't this the kind of stuff you'd just love to have? The ability to wiretap your enemies without any kind of oversight? The ability to gulag your enemies by waving around the 'enemy combatant' label and thereby ensuring that they have no access to civilian courts? (remembering that even the military can be turned, which is why so many folks want their guns, right?)

It's not *this* President I'm so much worried about. It's the fact that perpetuity is a very long time, and I'm sure that sooner or later, we're going to get a President who really wants to do bad things, and this administration is putting tools in place for him to do so.

and now you are the first person I shall throw into a 'gulag' for attempting to insinuate what my plans are when I take over.