Senate Passes FISA Bill

Good.

the Senate approved and sent the White House a bill Wednesday to overhaul bitterly disputed rules on secret government eavesdropping and shield telecommunications companies from lawsuits complaining they helped the U.S. spy on Americans.

The relatively one-sided vote, 69-28, came only after a lengthy and heated debate that pitted privacy and civil liberties concerns against the desire to prevent terrorist attacks. It ended almost a year of wrangling in the Democratic-led Congress over surveillance rules and the president’s warrantless wiretapping program that was initiated after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The House passed the same bill last month, and Bush said he would sign it soon.

1. Hooray for big brother!

   Posted by capper on July 09, 2008 at 2258 hrs




2. Sad day for America life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
   Warrantless wiretapping is not what our founding fathers
   wanted. If you ate crap and barked at the moon if the president told you would you do it. Not me. I swore an oath to the constitution not an adminstration. Its now legal to violate the law for the president

   Posted by on July 09, 2008 at 2359 hrs




3. "Warrantless wiretapping is not what our founding fathers
   wanted.” Somehow, I don’t think the Founding Fathers even thought about wiretapping back in the 1700’s.

   Posted by on July 10, 2008 at 0054 hrs




4. Neutron - that the bill even passed 69-28 means that at least 17 Democrat senators voted for it, including His Obamaship. Rein in your BDS and admit at least that much. He wouldn’t even have the opportunity to sign the bill if your own party (I assume) hadn’t sold out your beliefs. So who’s eating c**p and barking at the moon? Will you still vote for BArry O? If you are, then your criticism of Bush is merely moonbat ranting.

   Posted by on July 10, 2008 at 0718 hrs




5. And those Democrats that voted for this abomination of a bill were dead wrong.

   RIP, 4th Amendment.

   Posted by on July 10, 2008 at 0827 hrs




6. Good?… Seriously Owen, Good?

   Our right to own a firearm is something worth dying over, but when our fundamental right to privacy is usurped it is good?

   All laws must be obeyed at all times, but when a massive telecom corporation flagrantly breaks the law at the behest of a corrupt administration it is good?

   Posted by on July 10, 2008 at 0857 hrs




7. Yes.  Good. 

   I do not accept the argument that you have an expectation of privacy when you place a call over the PSTN.  If you do have that expectation, you are a fool.  Think about it.  If you place a call from Milwaukee to D.C., your call will probably pass through two or three infrastructures owned by different companies.  All along the way, any administrator or even field tech with a butt set can listen to your call.  If you think that your phone calls are 100% private, you’re wrong. 

   Furthermore, I do not believe that the telecom companies should be held liable.  They got what they thought was a lawful request from their duly elected government to give them information.  The companies have not given any assurances to their customers to protect that information (like banks, etc. do).  If a customer signed something where the company promised to protect their information, then the customer would have a case.  Otherwise, that data is the company’s to do with what they please. 

   Think of the standard you’re advocating, 3rd way, when you say, “when a massive telecom corporation flagrantly breaks the law at the behest of a corrupt administration it is good?” Are you saying that the companies should judge for themselves whether or not to comply with the government based on their opinion of whether or not the administration is corrupt or not? 

   The telecom firms acted in good faith.  They should not be liable.  If you think the request itself unlawful or should be unlawful, then your beef is with the government - not the telecom firms.

   Posted by Owen on July 10, 2008 at 0927 hrs




8. Now all we have to do is rename the bill of rights the bill of collective rights and guys like capper will be happy.

   Posted by on July 10, 2008 at 0934 hrs




9. I do not accept the argument that you have an expectation of privacy when you place a call over the PSTN.  If you do have that expectation, you are a fool.  Think about it.  If you place a call from Milwaukee to D.C., your call will probably pass through two or three infrastructures owned by different companies.  All along the way, any administrator or even field tech with a butt set can listen to your call.  If you think that your phone calls are 100% private, you’re wrong. 

   I think the NSA has been listening in on whoever they wanted to whenever they wanted to since the NSA’s inception, but that doesn’t mean it should be legal for them to do it.

   Are you saying that the companies should judge for themselves whether or not to comply with the government based on their opinion of whether or not the administration is corrupt or not? 

   Hell yes.  There is this thing called the constitution and the rule of law.  Any corporation has access to bushels full of smart lawyers that know when they are breaking the law.  I don’t care if Jesus asks you to break the law.  If you break the law you are held accountable.  AT&T;should have denied thier requests.  My beef is more with the government than with the Telecoms but they both broke the law and they should both be held accountable.

   Posted by on July 10, 2008 at 0944 hrs




10. Again, I don’t see what the telecom firms did that was illegal.  It’s their data.  They had no contractual obligation with their customers to protect it (whether or not it’s good business to do so is another question).  It’s their choice to give it to a telemarketing firm, the government, a research institution or whomever they please.  You may have a right to privacy, but that does not obligate other private citizens/companies to protect your right.

    Posted by Owen on July 10, 2008 at 1012 hrs




11. If they didn’t break the law why was retroactive immunity an issue?

    Posted by on July 10, 2008 at 1017 hrs




12. It’s immunity against civil lawsuits.  Even if they didn’t break the law, they can be sued and have to spend millions defending themselves (which will show up on your phone bill).

    Posted by Owen on July 10, 2008 at 1026 hrs




13. Are you saying that the companies should judge for themselves whether or not to comply with the government based on their opinion of whether or not the administration is corrupt or not? [. . .] I don’t see what the telecom firms did that was illegal.

    Read the original FISA.  It is clear that no one--not the president, not the Congress, not anyone--has the authority to ask for the data that they did (before 9/11 even, mind you) without a warrant.  The law is the law is the law.  That Congress yesterday had to pass a grant of retroactive immunity, at the insistence of the administration, suggests that Congress, the DoJ, the NSA, and the White House all believed that what the telecoms did was against the law when they did it.  The telecoms have a responsibility--and, indeed, multi-million dollar law firms on retainer to ensure it--to follow the law.

    Consider the case of Qwest, whose attorneys balked at the initial request from the NSA (again, pre-9/11) because they knew it was illegal.  Qwest was later shut out of straightforward but lucrative government contracting work thereafter until they capitulated, which suggests why the firms who cooperated may have been willing to break the law in the first place.

    Yes, the data these firms had was indeed their data.  But the law bounds--well, bounded--what was permissible for them to do with it.  They violated that law.

    (I suggest reading up on the al-Haramain decision from last week, in which a Republican-appointed judge spanked the administration for its violations of FISA.  The judge traces the history of the legislation and suggests that “no reasonable entity [. . .] could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal.")

    Posted by folkbum on July 10, 2008 at 1816 hrs




14. Big T-

    It is now called the Bill of Former Rights.

    Posted by capper on July 10, 2008 at 2204 hrs




15. Owen

    The Telecoms don’t want protections from the plaintiffs in the lawsuits.  The telecoms want protection from the experts the judges want to hire on their behalf t explain the technical to them.

    Here squash motion which is an example of what I mean.

    The AT&T;and the NSA are petitioning the court to dismiss and the court is demanding AT&T;and the NSA to “show cause” as to why the Court should not retain its on technical expert.

    Posted by John Washburn on July 11, 2008 at 0326 hrs




16. RE:

    I do not accept the argument that you have an expectation of privacy when you place a call over the PSTN.

    Yes, you do and this expectation is Constitutionally protected by the Ninth amendment.

    What do you think protects the unenumerated rights of self-defense, privacy, contract, travel, property, etc.?

    Unless the Government can point to a particular, enumerated power, it was the intent of James Madison that the Ninth amendment would bar the Government from action in that sphere.

    Jefferson and Madison held the view that Government Power and Individual Liberty were a zero-sum game; as one waxes the other wanes.  With FISA, Government Power waxes and we, the gullible, modernist sheep, reject the the deep wisdom of our forefathers to think that Individual Liberty has not waned.

    Posted by John Washburn on July 11, 2008 at 0347 hrs




17. Obama voted for this bill.

    Posted by on July 11, 2008 at 0934 hrs