New "JUSTICE" Act Could Roll Back Telecom Immunity 263
Asmodae writes to tell us about a bill proposed in Congress that could roll back telecom retroactive immunity along with adding other privacy safeguards. The "Judicious Use of Surveillance Tools in Counter-Terrorism Efforts" (JUSTICE) Act advocates the "least intrusive means" of information collection and imposes many limitations on the process. "One of the most significant aspects of the JUSTICE Act is that it will remove the retroactive immunity grants that were given to the telecom companies that participated in the NSA warrantless surveillance program. The companies that cooperated with the surveillance program likely violated several laws, including section 222 of the Communications Act, which prohibits disclosure of network customer information. The immunity grants have prevented the telecommunications companies that voluntarily participated in this program from being held accountable in court."
ooh (Score:2)
Re:ooh (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, you had it right the first time. You see, as pointed out above, this isn't really JUSTICE in any sense: the telecoms were doing what they're gov't asked them in a time of fear and urgency, and the telecoms said "well, we have two choices:"
1) "Not only is this illegal, but its also wrong to invade privacy like that. No." Government definitely doesn't listen and/or just ignores what the telecoms want from the FCC later down the road. Public gets mad when government is all like "Hey, we asked for he
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
#1: obey the law and require the government to actually take the trivial steps required to get warrants in a FISA court. You protect the public's rights, protect your own backside, and force government to follow its own rules.
#2: break the law and become criminals. You break the law and encourage the intelligence community to be lazy (get everything and sort through it later).
How is this a difficult choice again? #2 really doesn't help anyone. The only explanation I can think of for companies bending so
Re: (Score:2)
"Not only is this illegal, but its also wrong to invade privacy like that. No." Government definitely doesn't listen and/or just ignores what the telecoms want from the FCC later down the road. Public gets mad when government is all like "Hey, we asked for help against these terrorists but [BIG TELCO] said 'No.'" Telcos are bad guys.
So, when someone might make me look bad if I don't murder someone for them, that absolves me of murder? No. Illegal is illegal, wrong is wrong, despite whatever cost it may have if you uphold those standards. No matter what kind of pressure they were under, the telcos are still responsible for their actions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I just want to say something to everyone who has replied: I'm not saying the telcos shouldn't be held responsible, I'm just saying that if they knew it was illegal and immoral, you better damn believe the government knew it was illegal and immoral too, and we shouldn't let them off the hook so easily just because they introduce legislation to protect themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
But it is "JUoSTiCTE" or "JUSTCTE". They can't compete with geeks creating acronyms...
is it constitunitional? (Score:5, Interesting)
hate to suggest it, but aren't retroactive laws mostly unconstitutional? I realize this is simply putting the punishments back into place that were in place when the acts were committed. They can remove the immunity that was inacted to block the EFF's civil lawsuits, but thinking they could be held criminally liable again my just be wishful thinking.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If the TELCOs broke the law by willingly participating in the warrentless wiretapping, then there is NOTHING retroactive about this. What IS unconstitutional is that there was an act passed by congress saying that the TELCOs cannot be punished.
One thing I don't like about this JUSTICE Act is that, if it passes, it gives congress the idea that the prior retroactive immunity act was constitutional.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the TELCOs broke the law by willingly participating in the warrentless wiretapping, then there is NOTHING retroactive about this. What IS unconstitutional is that there was an act passed by congress saying that the TELCOs cannot be punished.
Care to back that up with a citation? Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution prohibits the passage of ex post facto laws, which are those that criminalize an act which has already occurred (or increase the punishment for an act occurring prior to the legislation). The legislature most certainly can decriminalize prior acts, however. To do so is not ex post facto, because it does not impose a penalty on anyone for acts already committed. This occurs frequently. It is not clear, however, that cong
Re: (Score:2)
Amendment IV [archives.gov]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (emphasis mine)
No court order was given to search the communications of God and NSA only know how many people, nor was there any description
Mod... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One thing's for sure, you can't take away whatever immunity they may have been granted.
That IS an ex post facto law.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that easy.
First, if the immunity itself was unconstitutional, then the provision of the justice act reoutlawing it is redundant and moot.
However...
If the immunity grant is constitutional, then it's anyone's guess as to how SCOTUS would rule on the enforceability against telcos who were effectively pardoned after the fact.
Either way, any non-retroactive immunity the telcos relied upon AFTER the law was passed cannot be taken away.
Re:is it constitunitional? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:is it constitunitional? (Score:5, Insightful)
The durable facts that matter is that they committed an offense at the time it was illegal.
After the fact, they can be granted immunity, and it can be repealed, repeatedly even. The fact that they broke a a law that existed at the time cannot be changed. Only the present enforcement of the past violation can be changed.
They cannot of course change the definition of what was illegal in the past, or the scope, or the punishment. THAT would be unconstitutional.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Nothing will happen.
Under existing laws, if the government presented the telecoms with documentation claiming the government had authority to get the information, that documentation would be an affirmative defense against any criminal or civil action against the telecoms. This was in the title 3 provisions of the omnibus crime whatever act passed in 1968 and is still unchanged and in effect today.
The problem is that the documentation needed to prove the government claimed to have the authority is classified
Re: (Score:2)
aren't retroactive laws mostly unconstitutional?
Yes, but that doesn't cover what's going on here. What the telecoms did was already illegal at the time they did it. This doesn't try to prosecute them for acts committed between the time the immunity was granted and now. It will prosecute them for the illegal acts they committed before the immunity was granted. Secondly, the immunity was conditioned on them confessing their sins, so to speak. That hasn't happened, so there is also no breach of contract involved.
In this case it probably is (Score:2)
So what you can't pass is an ex post facto law. What that means is you can't have something that is legal, change it to be illegal, and then prosecute people who did it before it was illegal. So take MDMA as an example. When it was first created, there was nothing illegal about it. The US is basically a "legal by default" nation, if there isn't a law saying you can't do something, you can. So when it was made creating, possessing, and using it were fine. It was then made a scheduled substance and outlawed.
Re: (Score:2)
It is only forbidden to prosecute someone for something that wasn't a crime at the time they did it. This WAS at that time a crime, so it's OK.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a 50yo Aussie who used to think he would never see the US and AU collude at the highest level to prosecute a restrospective law on a political prisoner for domestic propoganda purposes. I was wrong [wikipedia.org]. The fact that Hicks is a dickhead didn't help his case but what bothered me a lot more is that for a few years a large number of people on both sides of the pacific continued to tow the government line long after it became obvious H
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing to see here, move along... (Score:2, Insightful)
Their guy got elected president, but has said that he doesn't support legislation like this. In many ways, Obama is only slightly different than Bush. This is fodder for rabid supporters, but doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of actually passing.
It's also a damned stupid thing for them to do, because pandering to the fringe here only further hampers their party's electoral chances next year.
But, it's all good, I suppose, because the Administration's actions on the possible prosecution of government
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. They all look like marionettes to me.
It's a sad day when people who learn of a corporation illegally conspiring with the federal government to spy on the citizens and don't believe the corporation should do this with impunity are considered members of "the fringe." Really, that's a damned shame
Re: (Score:2)
Obama is only slightly different than Bush.
Bush said we must have this information to fight terrorism. And then he went looking for p0rn downloads.
Obama says we must have this information to fight terrorism. And then he goes looking for Swiss bank accounts.
Hey, at least my p0rn collection is safe!
Oh, come on (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I voted for him, less of two evils and all that jazz, and I must say he does not want to "Move on" he wants to cover up.
This is just further proof that we really only have one political party in this nation.
JUSTICE for both sides (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably those telcos aren't exactly saints, but here the blame is put in the wrong target.
Re: (Score:2)
ob (Score:2)
Take off every constitution
You know what you doing
Move constitution
For great justice
Pardon? (Score:2, Insightful)
I have to wonder if the telcos overheard something compromising and that's why Obama flipped.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, they paid him off. He was at first against it, until he got a nice campaign contribution.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I know, pardons are for lifting criminal charges and/or the shortening of punitive measures.
The immunity provisions, I believe, were targeted at civil suits, not criminal charges, so a presidential pardon wouldn't apply.
Well this is a complicated issue (Score:2)
Telecos usually have EULA's that say voice and data services cannot be used for illegal activities, and are suspect to monitoring for such activities. The Police, FBI, etc usually have a "reasonable cause" loophole that makes it so that they can bypass a warrant if they think someone is doing something illegal and there is no time for a warrant to get issued.
The problem is that when a warrant is served there is usually a leak in the government that tells the suspect that they are being monitored and they ch
soo soo soo (Score:2)
Nothing to say ?
Re: (Score:2)
I just have one thing to say to that.
Patriot Act.
Re:JUSTICE (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, while I can hope that this is actually a bill with no hidden gotchas, given it's using a red hot item for it's ticket in, I would expect all sorts of nasty DMCA like shit hidden it's recesses.
Does anyone else find that kind of creepy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Having all these bills with names like "USA-PATRIOT" and "JUSTICE" (and a few I can't remember offhand) does sound rather Orwellian. If Britain is "sleepwalking into 1984", then the US seems to be racing towards it as fast as possible...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you really believe that the left is less intrusive of civil liberties than the right, you just don't have enough experience with the left. Or you're willfully ignoring it. They just usually attack different civil liberties than (some of) the right attacks, but you can bet your bottom dollar that once they have their highest priorities taken care of, they'll go after the rest. One of the first to go will be - no surprise - freedom to dissent. That's neither particularly left nor right, governments of all
Re: (Score:2)
Both sides are in it to screw the average citizen....
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes. but at least the democrats use lube, kiss you on the cheek and give you a tissue to wipe away the tears afterwards.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Only if you're poor. The republicans do the same if you're rich.
Re:Cue the flying monkey right in... (Score:5, Interesting)
Save your breath, this is all about charging windmills and being too ignorant to understand they are being manipulated and told to look in the other direction while something serious goes on. The weak will follow the lead who can play them the easiest. For some, it's the tele-evangelist saying give me money or god will kill my dog (or was it him), for others, it's politicians acting like they are squeaky clean by playing on the emotions of others to hide their own dirty work.
Here is the thing, the Telecoms already have immunity under existing laws if the administration presented them with acceptable documentation claiming to of had the authority to gather the information. Now, contrary to what anyone might think, Bush isn't dumb, I mean he got elected twice and convinced congress to almost unanimously take us into two wars as well as not pull us out by ending the funding. Some will claim that it was the people pulling Bush's strings that did that and even if it's true, there is nothing to make anyone believe that they magically stopped with the NSA TSP. So what I'm getting at is, it's highly likely that the telecoms were presented with authentic enough documentation that they will slide out from under any liability for breaking any laws. That always was the law ever since 1968 when the first wire tap laws were made. The problem the telecoms had was that the administration was claiming national security secrete making it a felony to present the documentation that would serve as their complete defense.
What this was originally about is sueing the telecoms to get information on who was being watched by the government so as they could either sue the government (and be rich bitch), sue the telecoms who couldn't answer with their affirmative defense without ricking prison time, (rich again bitch) or inform certain people of those actions the government was taking against them. This bill being considered does nothing but allow that to happen but the judicial system isn't really that stupid. Most likely, Obama would allow (either by court case or congress acting on his behalf) certain judges, most likely FISA judges to view the documentation the government presented the telecoms and affirm if it was official enough to satisfy the law for the complete defense. This means that the telecoms will still end up with immunity and the information will still remain secrete. Meanwhile, something more sinister and serious will be going on because Bashing Bush is just as important as Brittany Spears losing 5 lbs by taking ex-lax or what ever she has done lately that's more important then anything else.
It's just something to keep the idiots occupied. Bread and circuses so to speak.
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck with that. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Sovereign immunity is only applicable if the government didn't already give permission for a lawsuit. Evidently, the law has been specifically worded to exclude the federal government from recovery of civil damages which seems contrary to what I remember. It appears that H.R.3162 was passed as part of the patriot act in 2001 which specifically excluded the United State from being a target of a civil lawsuit concerning this.
However, it appears the ability to sue the US government has been moved to 2712 [cornell.edu] whic
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry, did I not mention that the paper work is classified as national security secrets and it would be a felony for anyone at the telecoms to disclose that information punishable by 5 to life with the possibility of the death sentence?
If I did fail to mention it, that would be because it's only reported all over the place that Bush classified the documents. Most Bush bashers claim he only did it to hide his tracks from FOIA and others ventures. Obviously, it's more then that because Obama has been pres
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, so the government says to the telecoms "We need access to prevent terrorism, don't worry it's all ok." The telecoms say "Ummm, ok. You're the government so it's not like we can say no, and I guess we don't want any more planes crashing into buildings and stuff." Now the government is saying "Oh, remember when we said not to worry, it's all ok? Well, it's not ok after all." Now the telecoms are all like "WTF?!?!"
It's the same thing as when the white house said to the CIA "Torture those terrorists be
Re:Cue the flying monkey right in... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Nuremberg defense did not work the there, and should not be allowed here either.
The CIA folks should get to join the telcom CEOs in jail. Just because your boss told you to do something illegal does not make it right nor legal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cue the flying monkey right in... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Cue the flying monkey right in... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
In theory no, in practice yes.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"The point here is that the Government previously said it was legal. Then after the fact, pull the rug out from underneath organizations in order to prosecute them."
That's exactly what happened in Nuremberg. The nazi-government sanctioned violating dozens of rules and the people who executed those rules were later tried for following orders.
The idea of Nuremberg is that you cannot hide behind what the government orders.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The idea of Nuremberg is that you cannot hide behind what the government orders.
Well, not if you lose, anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And guess which ruling cabal just lost one election they didn't plan to lose.
Are you sure they didn't plan to lose? Look at the candidates they ran. One could sure make an argument that somebody deliberately threw the game, if only so they could have someone else to blame for the train wreck resulting from 8 years of blinkered government-by-gut-instinct.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea of Nuremberg is that the winners get to take revenge on the losers for trying (and failing) to win.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cue the flying monkey right in... (Score:4, Insightful)
The point here is that the Government previously said it was legal. Then after the fact, pull the rug out from underneath organizations in order to prosecute them.
"Da Gubbmint" is not a single entity. What defines what is legal are the LAWS of the land, not officials who are supposed to enforce them. Officials frequently break the law, and just 'cause you worked with a bad official doesn't mean you are protected.
You aren't protected, even if the bad official is the president. You break the law, you pay the price.
There is no doubt that the telecoms have some of the best legal advisors in the land, who should have informed the executives that the government requests were NOT in accordance with the laws of the land.
And they weren't. Warrantless surveillance, in numerous forms, has been found many times in history to clearly violate constitutional principles. The competent legal representatives should have advised the telcos to STEER CLEAR. But instead, they stuck a deal.
And the telcos need to pay.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe, if you're talking about some hypothetical conversation between the NSA and the telecom people before they agreed to do what the government wanted. It sucks for the telecoms, and it may even get them at least partially off the hook come trial time, but then again that's why these massive corporations have general counsels. Chances are what they really did was to weigh the illegality of the actions against the potential monetary har
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all, nice troll though.
That is the common term for this stule of defense. It states that "Befehl ist Befehl" or in English "order is order". It is called that because this is the most famous incident of it being used.
Re:Cue the flying monkey right in... (Score:4, Insightful)
Allow me to explain.
So you're equating bugging...
From GPP's post: "The CIA folks should get to join...in jail." The CIA was torturing people who have never been convicted in either a civilian court or a military tribunal. So much for "innocent until proven guilty"! And you bought right into it. When the telcos started delivering communications to the Feds without judicial oversight, they became guilty of breaking the law, too. Is gassing someone for their ethnicity equivalent to aiding and abetting illegal wiretapping? Of course not. But both are violations of the law, and both should be punished under the law. The punishment should reflect the severity of the crime (gassing > waterboarding > illegal wiretapping), but it's completely stupid to argue that, since wiretapping is not nearly as evil as gassing families of Jews, those who assisted with the wiretapping should receive a "get-out-of-jail-free" card.
...Al-Qaeda operatives...
Ummm...alleged Al-Qaeda operatives. Refer to my comment above.
/. about racial profiling to see if the same thing has happened in the U.S. Or better yet, watch the TSA's propaganda, excuse me, "training videos" that flight instructors have to watch every year if they want to remain legal. When I watched them, I wasn't sure if I should laugh or be horrified that they essentially are telling flight schools/independent instructors to be suspicious of people of Arabic heritage.
Furthermore, Nazi Germany did, in fact, use similar tactics to rile up the German people against the Jews -- identify a bogeyman, play on the people's fears, then stir up a nation to villify an entire race of people. Read the comments here on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you can figure that out.
Either way it has nothing to do with it, it is only called that because that was the most famous case in which it was used.
Much like the OJ defense is not the only time that defense has been used but is the most famous case of it.
Re:Cue the flying monkey right in... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cue the flying monkey right in... (Score:4, Informative)
Except for the little fact that they need the judiciary's approval for stuff like this, we call those approvals warrants.
The executive branch does not have the power to break the law, no matter what two republican presidents have suggested.
sorry - but that's flat wrong (Score:2, Troll)
The executive branch *does* have the power to break the law.
So do I.
So do you.
I think what you meant is that they are not exempt from observing it.
Sometimes the executive branch argues that a specific law allows an exemption for their actions.
That argument is either supported or not, before the fact or after.
Reasonable people can disagree about whether or not emergent circumstances justify an exemption.
In the face of an actual terrorist threat - say, a confirmed dirty bomb in a populated area - it would be
Re:Cue the flying monkey right in... (Score:4, Insightful)
If however, the telecoms were forced or coerced or threatened, that's another matter.
Re:Cue the flying monkey right in... (Score:5, Interesting)
The United States is supposedly a nation ruled by law. In a nation ruled by law, not even the government has the right to order you to break the law, and in such a nation, the government cannot possibly make a meaningful commitment to protect you as part of the bargain.
In short, the Telecoms and the CIA shouldn't have broken the law, not even for the President (who is not above the law either), and in doing so, no matter how strident the declarations of immunity, they put their necks out. If a future administration decides, for good or ill, to rescind any guarantees, you're are, as they say, up shit creek.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's say these evil telecom companies are charged. What then? Throw the building into jail? Of course not.
So what will happen is:
1) some executive who cooperated with his government will be thrown in jail (that's really going to improve your life, isn't it?), and teach everybody to stand up and resist any cooperation with the government (join your local militia today!).
and,
2) the telecom companies will get a gigantic fine to teach them a lesson! $50 zillion dollars to the government! That'll show them
Re:Cue the flying monkey right in... (Score:5, Interesting)
The bottom line really would be that the $25 fee would only apply to those who buy services from these folks. As Qwest did not comply guess who lots of folks would be buying T1s from?
The entire point of fining a business is too encourage people not too do business with them by increasing their costs. The people who benefit from that are their competitors who obeyed the law.
Re:Cue the flying monkey right in... (Score:4, Interesting)
Four words: piercing the corporate veil. Once the company is opened up to civil liability, lawsuits will be filed, and during discovery, those lawsuits will likely uncover information about who knew what and when. At that point, depending on what they turn up, criminal charges might be filed against some of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You break the law, you take the chance that you'll end up paying. The Telcos surely knew what they were doing was illegal, and what's more must have known that not even the Executive Branch can compel someone to break the law.
Or, as Dr. McCoy so famously said "How can you get a permit to do a damned illegal thing."
If I had my way, everyone in the Executive branch who didn't immediately go public was breaking the law and should go to jail, including Bush. But seeing as it's almost impossible to prosecute a
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they should have said:
"Come back with a warrant"
In my job I have said that to police officers, well really I said "You will have to speak to our lawyer". Which is really just another way of saying the same thing.
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I.E. use your brain. Sometimes you get in less trouble in the long run standing up to the government and doing the right thing.
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone demands they break the law at gun point, call the cops. Since that's not the case here,
If the government says "Give us this thing the law specifically requires you to demand a court order for", you should... demand a court order.
If they say, "Give it to us without a court order, or we'll shut you down", ask how they intend to shut down a major telecom without a court order. Try not to giggle.
Nobody in their right mind thought the alternative was "being forced to close" Notably, Qwest didn't. They seemed to have mastered the phrase "No, that's illegal."
They were legally required to not allow these wiretaps without a court order. This requirement was supposed to hold even if the government asked them to do it. This requirement was supposed to hold particularly, specifically, and exactly if the government asked. That's the whole point of the law: The government isn't allowed to ask for this, so don't give it to them.
Cooperation with the government is not the highest duty of citizens or corporations. Nor is it an affirmative defense to any criminal act.
Re: (Score:2)
And if that was the way it happened, you might have a point. There was some degree of cohersion, to be sure, but Qwest is still around and they refused to co-operate.
Nobody can tell me that the legal departments of the Telcos didn't know what they were being asked to do was illegal. Those guys probably know the wiretap laws better than the FBI.
Re: (Score:2)
Not doing anything sends the message that what they did was the right thing. Sending folks to jail would clear that up.
The law already says the first part, they chose to ignore it.
No one is going to jail over this (Score:2)
It would take criminal charges, which requires that 12 jurors agree on a guilty verdict.
Given that it's a nonviolent offense, and that revoked immunity rankles a lot of people just as much as the violations, it's a non starter.
Even with a guilty verdict in a criminal trial, Obama would likely simply issue an order of clemency.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the nature of all of this clear. There is no need to make clear that which is already clear. The government could not legally ask them to do it, and they knowingly broke the law in doing it. Yes, there was some sort of Executive guarantee that they wouldn't get their asses kicked, but considering even that guarantee has no real force of law if Congress or the Executive later decides to rescind it (or more accurately, refuse to acknowledge its legitimacy), the Telcos should have known better. Per
Re:Ex post facto (Score:4, Funny)
Good work guys, soon the Constitution will only be suitable as toilet paper (just like my 401k).
At least if it's in the bathroom, some congressmen might actually READ it.
Re: (Score:2)
Not ex post facto (Score:2)
Ex post facto is about changing the legality of actions taken in the past, relative to their legality when the action was taken.
At the time the actions in question were taken, they were illegal. After this bill is passed, they will be equally illegal. That there was some interim period in which that legality was changed due to an actual ex post facto law does not affect the constitutionality of this law. Nullifying an ex post facto law isn't itself ex post facto.
To use a Van Damme analogy, Time Cop isn't
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An ex-post-facto law makes something illegal after it has happened.
Which really makes sense: If something was legal, passing a law making it retroactively illegal, and prosecuting people for things that were perfectly legal when they did them is obviously unjust, pretty much no matter what.
Passing a law making something legal, and/or forbidding prosecution of people who did that thing in the past, even though it was illegal might be a shabby cover-up. But it might be an obviously good thing; for example,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is how we get those people. Without dragging the the first set of folks into court we will never get any information about the second set.
How does that make any sense (Score:2, Troll)
They seem to be some of the good guys, but they didn't find a republic to co-sign the bill, so this has little chance to go anywhere.
Reply to This
It's insane to blame Republicans for not being able to pass a bill when the Democrats have a filibuster proof majority, AND a Democrat in the white house!
Republicans might help but if it does not pass it's just as much on the Democrats as the Republicans.