Reality-scope says: "We just want the power to do whatever we please."

Next week: Give me your civil liberties or we're all gonna die.

""Somewhere in the world, at this very moment, terrorists are planning the next attack on America," the president said in his radio address."

Probably right here in Anytown, USA.

But how, oh how, would the telecommunications industry help?

"Somewhere in the world, at this very moment, terrorists are planning the next attack on America," the president said in his radio address.



I'm still unclear on how wiretapping US citizens is going to stop a couple of camel jockeys in the mountains of afghanistan from blowing up the ocean.....

I thought the writers were done striking....

When are we gonna get some new material?

Weaver95: I'm still unclear on how wiretapping US citizens is going to stop a couple of camel jockeys in the mountains of afghanistan from blowing up the ocean

I don't have to understand how the rock keeps the tigers away, all that matters is that the rock keeps the tigers away.

Y'know the whole neocon schtick of "Well, if you're not doing anything wrong, then these new laws aren't anything to worry about"?

Well, if the government and telcoms aren't doing anything WRONG, then they don't need immunity, do they?

If you break federal wiretapping laws once, it's five years in jail. But if you break them a billion times, the President wants to give you immunity.

Go figure.

They need immunity to make sure they don't get their asses sued for doing what the govt told them to do.

BobtheFascist: They need immunity to make sure they don't get their asses sued for doing what the govt told them to do

If the government tells you to do something illegal, and you do it, you deserve to get your ass sued.

""Somewhere in the world, at this very moment, terrorists are planning the next attack on America,"

Bush thinks Americans would rather live on their knees than die on their feet.

And "conservatives" support him for this? Cowards.

I just wrote my congressmen again, and requested that they declare war on the U.S. Our own federal government is clearly the greatest enemy we've ever faced.

PS: It's not just the telcoms that are spying on you for the government... everybody's getting in on the act. Check out InfraGard Link (new window)

Uhh...submitter, did you bother to read the article you posted?

"Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence Mitch McConnell: 'We have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress' failure to act.'"

Hey government, you can spy on me if you get a warrant and produce a paper trail I can use to defend myself with. You know, in case someone in government abuses their power or pulls another boner like not realizing 9/11 was going to happen despite mounds of data.

If you expect me to give up my privacy for security, you are very confused.

helix400: Uhh...submitter, did you bother to read the article you posted?

"Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence Mitch McConnell: 'We have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress' failure to act.'"

"In a reversal today, the administration acknowledged that it has since learned that no one is refusing to cooperate.

A new statement by McConnell and Mukasey conceded, "new surveillances ... will resume, at least for now." "

"They can help class action trial lawyers sue for billions of dollars -- or they can help our intelligence officials protect millions of lives," Bush said.

you know what the courts would do with a merit-less class action suit?

throw it out.

people who haven't done anything wrong rarely need immunity.

helix400: Uhh...submitter, did you bother to read the article you posted?

"Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence Mitch McConnell: 'We have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress' failure to act.'"

If nobody is refusing to cooperate, how is intelligence being missed? Why are you afraid of FISA warrants?

helix400: Uhh...submitter, did you bother to read the article you posted?

"Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence Mitch McConnell: 'We have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress' failure to act.'"

Hmmmm...do I trust the director of an agency that has everything to gain by trampling my rights? Do I trust that man when he tells me 'intelligence was lost'? No, I do not. fark off Michael Mukasey, I hope your wife goes nuts, murders your children, and then castrates you before offing herself. You piece of tyrannical soviet-level shiat.

Sorry, this is a sensitive issue for me.

Without legal immunity, the statement said, phone companies were refusing to cooperate with government requests for wiretaps.

In a reversal today, the administration acknowledged that it has since learned that no one is refusing to cooperate.

what did they base their previous statement on?

I'd hate to think this admin. was pressuring congress using fear based rhetoric that had no basis in reality...again.

VR6Rattles:
Hey government, you can spy on me if you get a warrant and produce a paper trail I can use to defend myself with. You know, in case someone in government abuses their power or pulls another boner like not realizing 9/11 was going to happen despite mounds of data.

If you expect me to give up my privacy for security, you are very confused.

terrorist coddler.

I can hardly wait for Obama's administration to ask for the same thing.

/Where you stand depends on where you sit

boomaze: helix400: Uhh...submitter, did you bother to read the article you posted?

"Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence Mitch McConnell: 'We have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress' failure to act.'"

"In a reversal today, the administration acknowledged that it has since learned that no one is refusing to cooperate.

A new statement by McConnell and Mukasey conceded, "new surveillances ... will resume, at least for now." "

D'oh! That's what I get for not reading the news yesterday.

Not many people have picked up on this story yet. This article helps explain the situation better (link):

"But within hours of sending that letter, administration officials told lawmakers on the House and Senate intelligence committees that they had prevailed upon all of the telecommunications companies to continue cooperating with the government's requests for information while negotiations with Congress continue."

"We learned last night after sending [the original] letter that . . . new surveillances under existing directives issued pursuant to the Protect America Act will resume, at least for now," Mukasey and McConnell said in the statement released Saturday.

"Unfortunately, the delay resulting from this discussion impaired our ability to cover foreign intelligence targets, which resulted in missed intelligence information," Mukasey and McConnell added.

Or in other words, telecoms at first didn't cooperate, but now they are, on condition that Congress finds some solution.

Why are you afraid of FISA warrants?

Why can't you remember what I said last thread? I like Senator Feinstein's proposed solution. It always keeps the courts involved, but also prevents telecoms from having to spend millions defending themselves from anything they legally did. This way, there is no blanket immunity, and no frivolous lawsuits.

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing. Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the People, who have... a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean the characters and conduct of their rulers. There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free 'government' ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty. Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among people."

-John Adams

oversight needed

helix400: Why can't you remember what I said last thread? I like Senator Feinstein's proposed solution. It always keeps the courts involved, but also prevents telecoms from having to spend millions defending themselves from anything they legally did. This way, there is no blanket immunity, and no frivolous lawsuits.

So assuming I'm lazy and don't want to comb through the last thread, what did Feingold propose?

helix400: boomaze: helix400: Uhh...submitter, did you bother to read the article you posted?

"Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence Mitch McConnell: 'We have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress' failure to act.'"

"In a reversal today, the administration acknowledged that it has since learned that no one is refusing to cooperate.

A new statement by McConnell and Mukasey conceded, "new surveillances ... will resume, at least for now." "

D'oh! That's what I get for not reading the news yesterday.

Not many people have picked up on this story yet. This article helps explain the situation better (link):

"But within hours of sending that letter, administration officials told lawmakers on the House and Senate intelligence committees that they had prevailed upon all of the telecommunications companies to continue cooperating with the government's requests for information while negotiations with Congress continue."

"We learned last night after sending [the original] letter that . . . new surveillances under existing directives issued pursuant to the Protect America Act will resume, at least for now," Mukasey and McConnell said in the statement released Saturday.

"Unfortunately, the delay resulting from this discussion impaired our ability to cover foreign intelligence targets, which resulted in missed intelligence information," Mukasey and McConnell added.

Or in other words, telecoms at first didn't cooperate, but now they are, on condition that Congress finds some solution.

Why are you afraid of FISA warrants?

Why can't you remember what I said last thread? I like Senator Feinstein's proposed solution. It always keeps the courts involved, but also prevents telecoms from having to spend millions defending themselves from anything they legally did. This way, there is no blanket immunity, and no frivolous lawsuits.

A class action suit against the telcoms for doing something LEGAL will be tossed. You know it wasn't legal.

thenateman: I can hardly wait for Obama's administration to ask for the same thing.

/Where you stand depends on where you sit

you assume that obama would see the info that bush sees and draw the same conclusions?

I wouldn't count on it.

/we'll see.
//obama would be less popular than bush if he pulled that IMO

attackingpencil: So assuming I'm lazy and don't want to comb through the last thread, what did Feingold propose?

There were two proposed solutions. One by Feinstein (D) and another by Specter (R). Both are decent middle ground solutions, but I like Feinstein's better.

"One of the amendments, co-sponsored by Republican Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, would have substituted the government for the telecom companies in lawsuits, allowing the court cases to go forward but shifting the cost and burden of defending the program.

The other, pushed by California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, would have given a secret court that oversees government surveillance inside the United States the power to dismiss lawsuits if it found that the companies acted in good faith and on the request of the president or attorney general." link.

Both tried to push their amendments through in the Senate, but Democrats and Republicans soundly rejected them, and passed the original bill (The House Democrats wouldn't even let the bill come up for vote, knowing it would pass with ease).

My bet is that the compromise will be very similar to one of those two amendments.

thenateman: I can hardly wait for Obama's administration to ask for the same thing.

/Where you stand depends on where you sit

They won't. The FISA warrants are fine. Since you still stand behind Bush, you kinda don't count anyway ;)

helix400: "Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence Mitch McConnell: 'We have lost intelligence information ON DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES AND THEIR SUPPORTERS this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress' failure to act.'"

FTFT

If we don't give them the power to domestically spy on whomever the hell they want without oversight, the Democrats have already won.

Or something like that.

helix400: attackingpencil: So assuming I'm lazy and don't want to comb through the last thread, what did Feingold propose?

There were two proposed solutions. One by Feinstein (D) and another by Specter (R). Both are decent middle ground solutions, but I like Feinstein's better.

"One of the amendments, co-sponsored by Republican Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, would have substituted the government for the telecom companies in lawsuits, allowing the court cases to go forward but shifting the cost and burden of defending the program.

The other, pushed by California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, would have given a secret court that oversees government surveillance inside the United States the power to dismiss lawsuits if it found that the companies acted in good faith and on the request of the president or attorney general." link.

Both tried to push their amendments through in the Senate, but Democrats and Republicans soundly rejected them, and passed the original bill (The House Democrats wouldn't even let the bill come up for vote, knowing it would pass with ease).

My bet is that the compromise will be very similar to one of those two amendments.

Both still grant immunity to the telecoms. The law is the law. Using the "the government told me too " defense is bad precedent and blatantly unamerican.

helix400: Uhh...submitter, did you bother to read the article you posted?

"Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence Mitch McConnell: 'We have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress' failure to act.'"

How can they be certain that they've lost intelligence?

cltbuilder: helix400: Uhh...submitter, did you bother to read the article you posted?

"Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence Mitch McConnell: 'We have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress' failure to act.'"

How can they be certain that they've lost intelligence?

They can't. That's the other thing that makes it a lie.

The sad thing about this story is it's the socialists looking out for our rights.

cltbuilder: helix400: Uhh...submitter, did you bother to read the article you posted?

"Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence Mitch McConnell: 'We have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress' failure to act.'"

How can they be certain that they've lost intelligence?

When dealing with ANY government agency it's always best to assume that they've already lost intelligence and plan accordingly.

boomaze: Both still grant immunity to the telecoms. The law is the law. Using the "the government told me too " defense is bad precedent and blatantly unamerican.

You remind me of a little yapping dog. Both by noise and intelligence.

That does it... I am not voting for Bush in 2008

boomaze: Both still grant immunity to the telecoms. The law is the law. Using the "the government told me too " defense is bad precedent and blatantly unamerican.

That "just following orders" shiat didn't fly in Nuremberg either.

"We're on the hunt," for terrorists!

helix400: boomaze: Both still grant immunity to the telecoms. The law is the law. Using the "the government told me too " defense is bad precedent and blatantly unamerican.

You remind me of a little yapping dog. Both by noise and intelligence.

If the simple statement I posted seems like a yapping dog to you, you don't know the first thing about american law.

The two programs you mention both still shield the telecoms. It is a different form of immunity. You just keep following everything your fearless (fearful) leader tells you and you will be a safe from the terrorists. You, and most Bush backers at this point, are cowards. Plain and simple. Your fear makes you give up anything and everything. I really feel bad for you. Living in fear must be horrible. I'm blessed to be an Actual merican, so I wouldn't know.

justoneznot: The sad thing about this story is it's the socialists looking out for our rights.

Someone has to. We obviously can't trust the administration to do it. Or a good number of Congressmen for that matter.

An interesting read: Link (new window)

Also, I'd suggest reading Glen Greenwald's coverage on this.

/why reform a law when you can just declare yourself king and ignore it?

boomaze: The two programs you mention both still shield the telecoms.

No. Feinstein's amendment has telecoms first going to the FISA court.

* If the companies can show that they were acting based on legal Government certification or in good faith, or that they did not provide the alleged assistance, then immunity would be granted.
* If they cannot make such a showing, then immunity would not be granted.

Feinstein's amendment also attempted to clean up a lot of FISA loose ends that created practically all of the FISA mess in the past 6 years.

/P.S. I'm not a Bush backer.

helix400: boomaze: The two programs you mention both still shield the telecoms.

No. Feinstein's amendment has telecoms first going to the FISA court.

* If the companies can show that they were acting based on legal Government certification or in good faith, or that they did not provide the alleged assistance, then immunity would be granted.
* If they cannot make such a showing, then immunity would not be granted.

Feinstein's amendment also attempted to clean up a lot of FISA loose ends that created practically all of the FISA mess in the past 6 years.

/P.S. I'm not a Bush backer.

My reading of the Feinstein bill pretty much says if they can just prove the government told them it was legal and ok, they are free. That's bullshiat. And it is blanket immunity because of course they can show the government told them it was legal. They knew they were breaking the law. Horrible precedent to set in a democracy.

justoneznot: The sad thing about this story is it's the socialists looking out for our rights.

PLEASE read what socialism is. This is SO my fark pet peeves.

//hint: everytime it is brought up in fark threads, it is wrong.

I can't comprehend this. Why should any legal entity be granted immunity from the american legal system? Doesn't that kinda undermine the whole point of having an independent court system?

BoozePenguin

That's pre-9/11 thinking. Following the law is for the peasants now.

boomaze: And it is blanket immunity because of course they can show the government told them it was legal.

If the telecoms did something illegal on their own, they receive no immunity. Period.

If the government told the telecoms to provide intelligence, and it's later found that the action was illegal, then by Feinstein's amendment, the telecoms get protection, because the government should be sued instead.

If the telecoms did something legal, they don't have to spend millions defending themselves (and face the risk that one judge will wrongly fine telecoms billions for doing something legal).

Sounds good to me.

helix400: If the telecoms did something illegal on their own, they receive no immunity. Period.

Thats how I read it too. But they didn't do it one their own, we know that. SO it is just and quick little distraction to full immunity.