Telecom Amnesty Opponents Back New Amendment 250
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "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."
I wish we could learn something useful from (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Law,Transparency and Accountability out the win (Score:1, Informative)
NSA warrantless surveillance controversy [wikipedia.org]
What About the Victims? (Score:4, Informative)
What they are doing by enacting this amnesty is denying the victims of the illegal wiretapping any recourse. Essentially anyone who used international circuits to transmit confidential or proprietary information had that information compromised and therefore devalued. I seem to recall back in the 70s the Soviets used much less detailed information on telecommunications related to commodity trading to buy an enormous amount of US wheat at an extremely low price.
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, in this case it does. The law has always stated that the telecoms and their agents had a complete defense [cornell.edu] in any civil or criminal actions resulting from any law if the government or a law enforcement agency/officer presented the telecoms with documentation claiming their acts were legal. The FISA AG authorizations would have provided that independent of the AG's willingness to follow through on any other aspect of the law to keep it legal or not.
Of course, if the government didn't present the authority to do such taps to the telecoms, then they aren't covered. However, the current claim is that they would be but Bush classified the documents they need to prove the effect of the law which means they would be committing a felony if they defended their actions with the defenses provided by law. This has never really been about making the telecoms pay either. It has always been about gathering evidence on the administration which sort of seems like picking on the retarded neighbor kid in order to force his parents out of the house so someone else can rob them. Or at least that's how I see it.
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:5, Informative)
Obamamania not so loud now, huh? (Score:5, Informative)
.
"A Vote for Change" my ass.
Re:Hum interesting (Score:2, Informative)
They are doing society a service by making the information public but it's still a crime that they could be prosecuted for and most likely go to jail for if they became known.
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:3, Informative)
Because anyone who wasn't Bogarting joints in civics class knows that the Executive branch (not "the government") has the authority to enforce the laws that are created by various levels of legislature. The Executive is not a king, does not have the authority to tell anyone to break any law for any reason, and it does not become legal when the President does it [landmarkcases.org].
Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse for We, the People, so why should it be an excuse for telecos who have legions of lawyers on hand to advise them? All of those telcos could and should have told the NSA to go blow goats. You know, like QWest did.
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:2, Informative)
WHAT?
WHAT?!>?! (emphasis, you know)
The government is most certainly not above the law. YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT. Or more to the point, it is made up of individuals who can be hauled into court.
Above the law? What the hell is wrong with you?
Were you paid to say this, or are you just brainwashed?
I say this to people occasionally, but people like you really ARE the problem with America today. "The government did it, so it must be okay!" Are you REALLY that deluded?
Given the way his sentence read: "Of course the government is above the law, but companies should not be punished for government crimes.", I'd say it was an omission, and he meant "Of course the government is not above the law...".
Re:Hum interesting (Score:2, Informative)
I thought Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion [wikipedia.org].
Re:Hum interesting (Score:1, Informative)
that's Mister Nigger to you, fuckface.
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:3, Informative)
You dolt, that was a typo on my part, which should have been obvious given the statement I was replying to and my use of the phrase "of course". Anyone who thinks the government is above the law is only doing so to save their asses because they are members of the government and they've done something wrong.
As for your spiel about illegal acts from illegal orders - there is a difference between forcing someone to do something at gunpoint or on threat of punishment, for which there is no way out, and telling someone to do something. If there is no threat to your life, and you believe the act immoral or illegal, you should not go through with it. But once your life or the life of someone for whom you care is in danger, then the only rational choice is to comply.
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:4, Informative)
The law to which you link provides for this defense with a reference to Title 18 Part I Chapter 119 Section 2518 (7) [cornell.edu]. That allows for warrantless eavesdropping only when "an emergency situation exists," and requires that a court order must be presented within 48 hours of the start of interception. If the court order is not presented, the intercepted material is considered to have been obtained illegally and within 90 days the subject(s) of the eavesdropping must be notified that their communications were intercepted. (IANAL)
AFAIK, court orders were never obtained for these cases and the subjects were not notified of the interceptions.
Re:I wish we could learn something useful from (Score:3, Informative)
The French government is afraid of its people, and thus responsive, because every couple years the French have a great big riot, just to prove they still can. Hell, the current system is called the French Fifth Republic. Why the fifth? Because they replaced the other 4. The last time they kicked their entire government out of office and replaced the system was only 50 years ago.
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:5, Informative)
If you have been paying attention you would know that the documents the telecoms need to show their actions were legal have been classified by the Bush administration as national security secretes.
That places the Telecoms in a position that they can't defend without breaking an entirely different law and the courts seeing the suits don't have the authority to grant immunity from prosecution which carries prison time. The administration went to court and explained this claiming that the documents were national security secrets which historically have caused the cases to be dismissed. A judge in CA said it wasn't good enough and the public had a right to see the contents of the orders. The administration has refused to declassify the documents because it would place national security at risk. It might be prudent to suggest that he is more likely protecting activities that might have been illegal and it has been claimed that the telecom suits were only an attempt at learning about those activities but all we have is face value in the reasoning stated at the moment.
In the end, we have an organization that isn't a government entity but works closely with the government in many aspects who isn't allowed a fair trial by default. It violates on the basic tenent of our legal system and people seem to be able to over look that if it allows them to get what they see as the bad guy. In this case, the bad guy is Bush and anyone he may have used in his actions.
If you look at the so called immunity bill, it doesn't actually provide immunity. It provides a means for the administration to certify if it presented orders or not and if they were legal or not. If they were legal and there was a court order, the case automatically gets dismissed. If they weren't followed through on or if they relied on the AG's authorizations, then it goes to a special court of abuse to determine if the government actually presented a legal looking document. If that is true, then the case get's dismissed. Under FISA, provisions allowed the AG to present authorizations without a court order given that one would be sought. It really isn't the Telecoms' fault if that follow through was never implemented because the follow through is after the fact.
Anyways, don't take this as some form of rebuttal. It isn't. It is a description of the events leading to the current situation which on itself leads to a little different light. The laws in place at the time provided a complete defense for the telecoms if they were presented with authentic authorization [cornell.edu] even if they weren't legal. This is mostely why a lot of the democrats are breaking ranks and voting for the immunity. Look at the bill itself. [loc.gov] I have to link that way because the links won't stay valid for long. Select the 1st entry then scroll down to the title II protections. Notice how it provides for the AG to certify it's actions without divulging information the would be considered top secrete or a national security "state secrete".
Re:Recourse from whom? (Score:1, Informative)
If I asked you to kill someone, and you did. Do you seriously believe you should get off from *any* form of punishment?
The government asked telecoms to break the law, one telecom (Qwest) said "No, that's incredibly fucking illegal" and no harm came to them because they were OBEYING THE LAW.
What retaliation would you expect? These companies that went along with it, did so for financial gain, that's it.
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:1, Informative)
Jesus christ, I replied to a guy before telling him not to be confrontational, but he was fucking diplomatic compared to you. LOOK AT THE CONTEXT. It was very, very likely to be a typo. Don't be such an asshole without looking closely at what somebody's saying!
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:3, Informative)
If you have been paying attention you would know that the documents the telecoms need to show their actions were legal have been classified by the Bush administration as national security secretes.
I'm well aware of the complexities involved... as you obviously are as well.
If you look at the so called immunity bill, it doesn't actually provide immunity. It provides a means for the administration to certify if it presented orders or not and if they were legal or not.
But there's the rub... it's not a power of the executive (or legislative) branch to determine whether or not an activity was within the law. Between everything being secret, and the provisions of this bill on top of it all, they have effectively usurped that power from the judicial. It sure seems like effective immunity, if not explicit.
If they were legal and there was a court order, the case automatically gets dismissed. If they weren't followed through on or if they relied on the AG's authorizations, then it goes to a special court of abuse to determine if the government actually presented a legal looking document. If that is true, then the case get's dismissed. Under FISA, provisions allowed the AG to present authorizations without a court order given that one would be sought. It really isn't the Telecoms' fault if that follow through was never implemented because the follow through is after the fact.
Not being a lawyer, it's difficult to come to a complete understanding of the big picture, but the way I parse the text, the court review only comes into effect when the AG gives unsworn testimony (per USC section 1746 of title 28 referenced in 202.b). 202.a doesn't explicitly require sworn testimony from the AG - only "certification to the court". Perhaps sworn testimony implied? Otherwise, a rubber stamp from the AG is all that's needed... again keeping all the power inside the executive.
It's unfortunate when any entity gets stuck in legal dilemmas like this, but it seems to me that the complex nature of the issue makes review even more important.
Which is where the state secrets privelege becomes such a problem... obviously, there are situations where secrets are vital to the security of a country, at least for a period of time. But how can abuse be prevented when investigations into abuse can be halted in their tracks because everything's a secret? I don't pretend to have an answer, but congress seems more intent to sweep everything under the rug rather than address the issue.
Business as usual, i suppose.