Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Spying Started BEFORE September 11 - That's The Whole POINT

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-05-08 10:42 PM
Original message
The Spying Started BEFORE September 11 - That's The Whole POINT
Edited on Sat Jul-05-08 10:50 PM by kpete
The Spying Started BEFORE September 11 - That's The Whole POINT
Posted July 5, 2008 | 10:45 PM (EST)

Dave Johnson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In the aftermath of Sept. 11, the White House directed telecommunications carriers to cooperate with its efforts to bolster intelligence gathering and surveillance -- the administration's effort to do a better job of "connecting the dots" to prevent terrorist attacks.http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-soderberg5-20...


No, it started a few weeks after Bush took office - a time when the Bush administration was ignoring the terrorist threat. So it was about something else, and was a high enough priority to plan out during the transition. (Can you say "political spying?")
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

One telecom company, Qwest, refused because it was flat-out illegal. The Bush administration punished them, blocked federal contracts, and in an early indicator of what was to come from the politicized Bush Justice Department, they prosecuted Qwest's CEO on trumped-up charges.

The combination of the telecoms letting Bush illegally spy on us BEFORE September 11, and the politicized Bush Justice Department punishing the company that refused - refused because it was illegal - is the reason so many of us are so adamant that Democrats should not be passing a law giving these companies immunity. The President can't spy on people without warrants, and the telecoms knew that. They knew it was illegal to spy on us without warrants but they went along with it. Why? Why didn't they ask the Bush administration to just get warrants? And why would Democrats vote to let them off the hook?

Don't forget that Watergate was about Republicans illegally wiretapping Democrats. Don 't think they don't do it.

more at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/the-spying-s...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-05-08 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. And what folks are missing about the propsed FISA amendment
is that what they call "immunity" doesn't happen if the surveillance was illegal. The proposed FISA legislation states that throughout the legislation - it doesn't matter if GWB ordered it, IT HAD TO BE LEGAL.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-05-08 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Is That Right?
So if civil charges stick if the action was criminal? I thought the legislation was written by Bush supporters.

Personally, I am quite not as concerned about civil penalties against the companies. I am not even as concerned about criminal penalties about the administration. The most important thing for the country's future is that the spying is brought to the public's attention and universally repudiated, and that steps are taken so it never happens again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-05-08 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. The language is clear, if the action was not lawful, the civil
litigation continues. That is how such cases proceed as it is, without this litigation. This litigation does not provide any new defenses to the telecoms.

When sued, a complaint is filed. The defendants answer the complaint by pleading defenses. Just because the defendants claim the defense does not stop the litigation, the defenses must be proved.

The perfect example to give is a cop that follows his supervisors orders and beats his prisoner. When sued the cop alleges he is protected by sovereign immunity. That is a common law defense that says the need for the government agency (sovereignty) to be protected from litigation is vital to the survival of the sovereign and those the sovereign serve. The defense only holds up if the cop can show he was following orders, regulations, policy and if his actions were legal and did not violate the rights of a US citizen.

Congress can pass no law that infringes upon the rights of the citizens.

What I find most interesting about the FISA legislation is that if one provision is found to be unconstitutional, the rest are not affected. It would seem that the writers themselves realize that the provision will be challenged and will not hold up to scrutiny.

Oh, let me add that I don't think the proposed legislation is perfect, there are provisions that need to be improved (the 7 day window). I see this legislation as necessary because it provides needed standards and steps that must be taken. Without this legislation the government can do as it has always done, conduct surveillance because they can. That will probably continue but it won't be able to bully private citizens and/or corporations into doing their bidding under the guise of national security and executive orders.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-05-08 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. When You Say
"That will probably continue but it won't be able to bully private citizens and/or corporations into doing their bidding", do you mean that if the legislation passes it will deter cooperation? Is that because it explicitly limits immunity to legal actions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. That's a good way to put it.
Edited on Sun Jul-06-08 12:47 AM by merh
What I find sad is that Greenwald, one of the loudest opponents to this version, writes that it does not allow judicial review, that it takes the action away from the courts and it is the AG and only the AG that can determine whether or not the action continues. That is blatantly false as the provision that provides the statutory defenses (what some call immunity), Section 802, is quite clear. It provides for judicial review and allows for review and/or appeal of the certification.

SEC. 201. PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING STATUTORY DEFENSES UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 1978.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), as amended by section 101, is further amended by adding at the end the following new title:

TITLE VIII--PROTECTION OF PERSONS ASSISTING THE GOVERNMENT

SEC. 801. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:

(1) ASSISTANCE- The term assistance means the provision of, or the provision of access to, information (including communication contents, communications records, or other information relating to a customer or communication), facilities, or another form of assistance.

(2) CIVIL ACTION- The term civil action includes a covered civil action.

(3) CONGRESSIONAL INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES- The term congressional intelligence committees means--

(A) the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and

(B) the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.

(4) CONTENTS- The term contents has the meaning given that term in section 101(n).

(5) COVERED CIVIL ACTION- The term covered civil action means a civil action filed in a Federal or State court that--

(A) alleges that an electronic communication service provider furnished assistance to an element of the intelligence community; and

(B) seeks monetary or other relief from the electronic communication service provider related to the provision of such assistance.

(6) ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDER- The term electronic communication service provider means--

(A) a telecommunications carrier, as that term is defined in section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153);

(B) a provider of electronic communication service, as that term is defined in section 2510 of title 18, United States Code;

(C) a provider of a remote computing service, as that term is defined in section 2711 of title 18, United States Code;

(D) any other communication service provider who has access to wire or electronic communications either as such communications are transmitted or as such communications are stored;

(E) a parent, subsidiary, affiliate, successor, or assignee of an entity described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D); or

(F) an officer, employee, or agent of an entity described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E).

(7) INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY- The term intelligence community has the meaning given the term in section 3(4) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a(4)).

(8) PERSON- The term person means--

(A) an electronic communication service provider; or

(B) a landlord, custodian, or other person who may be authorized or required to furnish assistance pursuant to--

(i) an order of the court established under section 103(a) directing such assistance;

(ii) a certification in writing under section 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) or 2709(b) of title 18, United States Code; or

(iii) a directive under section 102(a)(4), 105B(e), as added by section 2 of the Protect America Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-55), or 702(h).

(9) STATE- The term State means any State, political subdivision of a State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and any territory or possession of the United States, and includes any officer, public utility commission, or other body authorized to regulate an electronic communication service provider.

SEC. 802. PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING STATUTORY DEFENSES.

(a) Requirement for Certification- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a civil action may not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court against any person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community, and shall be promptly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the district court of the United States in which such action is pending that--

(1) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to an order of the court established under section 103(a) directing such assistance;

(2) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to a certification in writing under section 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) or 2709(b) of title 18, United States Code;

(3) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to a directive under section 102(a)(4), 105B(e), as added by section 2 of the Protect America Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-55), or 702(h) directing such assistance;

(4) in the case of a covered civil action, the assistance alleged to have been provided by the electronic communication service provider was--

(A) in connection with an intelligence activity involving communications that was--

(i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007; and

(ii) designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation for a terrorist attack, against the United States; and

(B) the subject of a written request or directive, or a series of written requests or directives, from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community (or the deputy of such person) to the electronic communication service provider indicating that the activity was--

(i) authorized by the President; and

(ii) determined to be lawful; or

(5) the person did not provide the alleged assistance.

(b) Judicial Review-

(1) REVIEW OF CERTIFICATIONS- A certification under subsection (a) shall be given effect unless the court finds that such certification is not supported by substantial evidence provided to the court pursuant to this section.

(2) SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS- In its review of a certification under subsection (a), the court may examine the court order, certification, written request, or directive described in subsection (a) and any relevant court order, certification, written request, or directive submitted pursuant to subsection (d).

(c) Limitations on Disclosure- If the Attorney General files a declaration under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, that disclosure of a certification made pursuant to subsection (a) or the supplemental materials provided pursuant to subsection (b) or (d) would harm the national security of the United States, the court shall--

(1) review such certification and the supplemental materials in camera and ex parte; and

(2) limit any public disclosure concerning such certification and the supplemental materials, including any public order following such in camera and ex parte review, to a statement as to whether the case is dismissed and a description of the legal standards that govern the order, without disclosing the paragraph of subsection (a) that is the basis for the certification.

(d) Role of the Parties- Any plaintiff or defendant in a civil action may submit any relevant court order, certification, written request, or directive to the district court referred to in subsection (a) for review and shall be permitted to participate in the briefing or argument of any legal issue in a judicial proceeding conducted pursuant to this section, but only to the extent that such participation does not require the disclosure of classified information to such party. To the extent that classified information is relevant to the proceeding or would be revealed in the determination of an issue, the court shall review such information in camera and ex parte, and shall issue any part of the courts written order that would reveal classified information in camera and ex parte and maintain such part under seal.

(e) Nondelegation- The authority and duties of the Attorney General under this section shall be performed by the Attorney General (or Acting Attorney General) or the Deputy Attorney General.

(f) Appeal- The courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from interlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States granting or denying a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment under this section.

(g) Removal- A civil action against a person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community that is brought in a State court shall be deemed to arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States and shall be removable under section 1441 of title 28, United States Code.

(h) Relationship to Other Laws- Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit any otherwise available immunity, privilege, or defense under any other provision of law.

(i) Applicability- This section shall apply to a civil action pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.


The DOJ is always defending litigation by saying that the governmental agency is immune, to plead a defense alone will not result in dismissal, the defense must be proved. The certification has to comply with the law and it is subject to review of the courts. As the federal judge has shown in the AT&T litigation, the courts want the truth and not a simple reason to toss out or dodge the action.

Here is a good discussion of the proposed FISA law.
http://fisa.wikispot.org/Telecom_Immunity_Arguments

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madamesilverspurs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #7
40. If it goes that far,
shouldn't we be concerned about "judicial review" by the present SCOTUS?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #40
41. I'm concerned about any review by this SCOTUS
We can't expect congress to write laws to circumvent that. We need to be sure that McCain isn't allowed the chance to make SCOTUS worse than it is.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madamesilverspurs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #41
42. So what is the procedure
for ridding ourselves of the Bush-agenda justices, Supreme Court on down?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 10:41 AM
Original message
I wish to god we could impeach Scalia, that would be a great beginning.
For the most part the US district judges do their jobs, some have been tempted by this admin with appointments to appeals courts and have violated their oaths and those will face review and will be found once we get a DOJ into place that recognizes that their job is to represent the people and not the office.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
minnesota_liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
74. Scalia never should have been let in
Fascist bastard!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #74
123. Alito and Roberts too, and the Dems just voted them in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #42
49. They can be impeached too, though you need to find more than just rulings you disagree with...
I think one way that you go after these justices is to find where in rulings they prevent justice from being served by doing things like supporting the Bush administration standing in the way of subpoenas being issued by congress to bring folks like Rove forward to testify. If we can show this as a pattern of *obstruction of justice*, in my book, that's an impeachable offense! That is why I also believe that SCOTUS so strongly ruled AGAINST Nixon and his buddies trying to block subpoenas in Nixon's time. They knew that if they did, they might get impeached for obstruction of justice too then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #49
54. I believe you are correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #49
136. Some think the SC should be an elective office . . . let people choose . . .
and we could expand the number of judges --- make it 12 ....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #136
137. If you expanded it,
I would suggest an odd number so as not to have deadlocks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #137
139. eh . . . 13 . . . ????
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-08 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #139
155. Maybe 11 or 15
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-08 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #155
157. I like 15 . . .
Thomas Jefferson had some interesting writings on the SC which I found in one of my
journals and if I find it again, I'll pop it up somewhere ---


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #42
94. Elect a Democratic president and increase the number of Democrats in Congress.
That's our only hope.

Alito and Roberts should not have been approved, and would not have been nominated or approved if (1) John Kerry or Al Gore was in the White House when the vacancies on the Court occurred or (2) if we had had a stronger majority in both houses of Congress.

If McCain gets elected, he'll have the opportunity to finish off the Court for the rest of our lives. These guys aren't kidding. They've packed the Court with young, activist, right-wing Justices who don't give a damn about the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #94
133. ....but without public financing of campaigns . . . who are we electing . .. ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #7
53. WOW, that is so NAIVE.
If "The certification has to comply with the law and it is subject to review of the courts." and the law says that if the AG so certifies, then all the court can review is if the AG so certified!

NEXT: "As the federal judge has shown in the AT&T litigation, the courts want the truth" is also FALSE. The court is the arbiter and all the court has done is arbitrate the pleadings and motions of the plaintiffs. It is the plaintiffs who are seeking the truth, and the court has to follow procedure!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #53
60. Naive is your position, go look up sovereign immunity.
Go read up on the Federal Tort Claims Act and the Tucker Act. Then once you have an understanding of them do so research and you will see that they did not prevent litigation and/or prevent injured plaintiffs from recovering damages.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
justaregularperson Donating Member (153 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #60
111. Merh, you are misrepresenting. I would ask why??
Yes, the legislation allows **civil** litigation to continue, but stops criminal liability in it's tracks. That may be an acceptable thing, but you misrepresent and cloud the issue by trying to make it sound like it has no legal effect on illegal activity.

My question is why? Do you work for one of our senators or are you connected otherwise?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #111
120. Please cite me to the provision that provides criminal immunity.
Copy it and past to me in your next response. Give me the section number. Let me know where in the bill you find it.

Oh and who do you work for?

Me, I'm just someone that is able to think for myself and found all the FISA boohaha annoying so I decided to read the bill for myself. Imagine my surprise when I actually read the bill and found that it specifically protects to the 4th amendment rights of US citizens, that it even protects the 1st amendment rights and it requires that no monitoring be allowed of US citizens without full compliance with the 4th which requires the probable cause that some scholars claim is lacking in the bill. Imagine my surprise when the word immunity is only used to relate to other acts, that the concept of immunity cannot be found in the bill, that statutory defenses are outlined (defenses which are common sense defenses) but that they are not absolute and more importantly, no defense lies if the law has been broken as stated in the legislation (and is basic law in civil actions such as this).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #7
70. Greenwald is a Constitutional Law Attorney....
And while there may be a WIKI Project on this...I don't know who is writing the WIKI and I trust Glenn Greenwald to know what he's talking about...just like the many other lawyers who have come out against FISA immunity. Just saying...


Glenn Greenwald is a constitutional law attorney and author of the political blog Unclaimed Territory. His writing has also appeared on AlterNet and in American Conservative Magazine. Greenwald has appeared on numerous television and radio programs, including C-SPAN's "Washington Journal," Air Americas "Majority Report" and Public Radio Internationals "To the Point." His reporting and analysis have been credited in the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, Salon, and Slate, among others.


http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:aJWm0yoGoS0J:www.m...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #70
84. And Greenwald has mistated provisions of the law
He makes mistakes, he is human.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #84
99. He's a Constitutional Lawyer...what are you? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #99
100. Someone that can read the law.
You don't need a degree to do that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #7
81. Regarding the Protect America Act, did Bush put any signing statements on that?
On an earlier post you mentioned illegality would that be under constitutional law or law as interpreted by David Addington, ie "The Unitary Executive?" Meaning if the President says it's legal, it's legal.

"(3) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to a directive under section 102(a)(4), 105B(e), as added by section 2 of the Protect America Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-55), or 702(h) directing such assistance;"

One other question why would they need to give immunity to telecom corporations for performing legal acts?

My feeling is, this legislation isn't about protecting the telecoms so much as it is the Cheney/Bush administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #81
90. Where is there immunity granted?
Section 802 provides statutory defenses and like all defenses, they have to be proven. If the AG certifies that all was good and right with the world the district court still has the right to review all things relative to the surveillence monitoring. That is not absolute immunity specifically if the provisions require that the actions be lawful.

Now, from a practical stand point, how can the government tell the judge that the monitoring of an entire region of the US was lawful? It could only be lawful if it complied with the 4th amendment and that is that there was probable cause sufficient to authorize that every US citizen in that region should be monitored.

Relative to the signing statements, imho, they are illegal. The president is acting outside of his constitutional purpose, he is acting as a legislator and not as the executive, when he writes his signing statements, when he amends the bills with his statements and reasoning.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #90
92. But it's phrased in past tense, that's what I mean when I say immunity.
"(3) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to a directive under section 102(a)(4), 105B(e), as added by section 2 of the Protect America Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-55), or 702(h) directing such assistance;"

The L.A. Time phrased it as letting them off the hook.

"We now know that they were not lawful. But the companies that followed those directives are not the ones to blame for that abuse of presidential power.

The bill passed by the House will prevent any repeat of that wrong, but it also lets those companies off the hook for past actions. While that's tough for many of us to swallow, the compromise still strikes the right balance between protecting our rights and our national security."


While I respect your humble opinion and agree with you, I don't think our humble opinions will count for squat when it comes to Bush's signing statements being illegal, certainly not by his AG or this Supreme Court.

I see this as opening a Pandora's Box of more erosion to the Fourth Amendment.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #92
93. it only lets them off the hook if they acted lawfully
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #93
135. Then what is Attorney General Mukasey talking about on this thread, if it's not immunity?
Edited on Mon Jul-07-08 07:55 PM by Uncle Joe
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


Source: CNN

Posted: 06:54 PM ET
From Justice Producer Terry Frieden

"WASHINGTON (CNN) Key Bush Administration officials Monday warned the Democratic Senate leader that any delay in granting legal immunity to telephone companies aiding government surveillance efforts would be met by a presidential veto.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell told Senate Majority leader Harry Reid in a strongly worded letter that a proposal to delay the legal protections by more than a year was a transparent effort to kill them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #135
140. legal protections - statutory defenses
not quite the same as immunity - my guess is he is talking about the statutory defenses. Maybe they figure if they say it enough the courts will not bother to follow the law and the plaintiffs won't seek review of their certications and it will work as immunity? The most interesting part about it is the right to appeal - based upon case precedence involving similar defenses, like sovereign immunity, the appeals court will more than likely reverse any out and out certification that is not reviewed by the trial court and a legal finding made.

It is also part of the feather shows, which rooster, peacock has the most attractive plummage -- keep the FISA debate current, it makes Obama's base doubt him.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-08 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #140
156. The corporate media is using it against Obama
I noticed this morning on NBC an Olbermann interviews Obama commercial stated will "Obama pay a price for his wiretapping stand?" I never heard such a thing about McCain and wiretapping from the corporate media.

This is one reason why I believe it's a losing cause for the Democrats in Congress to support what has so notoriously become a Republican liability.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
justaregularperson Donating Member (153 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #90
112. Are you saying there is no immunity included from ***criminal** liability?
You keep talking about Civil liability, as if that is the only kind. What about legal liability? It lets them off the hook for criminal liability even if they may have broken the law. They get off scott free by simply providing something showing that they were told it was not illegal by the Bush administration.

I believe this could set precident, that one can break the law as long as the executive tells them it is ok.

These are multi-millon dollar companies, they knew otherwise. Such a shoddy defense would never be allowed for the common man. Why is this acceptable to you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 08:28 AM
Response to Reply #112
117. It does not, and can not, let them off the hook criminally.
More specifically, if you look at what the AG must certify to relative to the statutory defenses afforded, the AG must certify that the action/monitoring was legal/lawful (did not break the law). If the monitoring was a sweep monitoring that resulted in the mass monitoring of all US citizens in a specific area then the 4th amendment was violated and the action was not lawful. Probable cause is required under the 4th and as such, is required under FISA (the legislation specifically refers to in compliance with the 4th). There could be no showing that probable cause exists with regard to all the thousands of US citizens that were monitored. Additionally, the legislation provides that unintentional monitoring is a defense but how can you show that a wide net monitoring was unintentional. Anyone with a lick of sense knows that is impossible to prove.

The legislation throughout states that the constitutional rights of US citizens will be protected and that illegal actions, actions in violation of the law, will not be afforded the defense sought.

There is no criminal or civil immunity granted by this proposed legislation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #7
149. I Have Been Following Your Posts with Interest, Merh
I think I see the reason for the disconnect.

A lot of your critics are citing Sec 802a: "a civil action...shall be promptly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the district court...." So it would seem that a loyalist AG like Gonzalez would simply rubber stamp whatever his administration would have done.

You, on the other hand, are continuing to the following section and pointing out: "b) Judicial Review (1) REVIEW OF CERTIFICATIONS- A certification under subsection (a) shall be given effect unless the court finds that such certification is not supported by substantial evidence provided to the court pursuant to this section."

So the AG letter is not absolute as some people seem to be claiming.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #4
107. That's not true
The new FISA law DOES provide new defenses to telcoms. If they are sued, all they have to do is show the judge a letter from Bush "certifying" the program, and the litigation is dismissed. The end. And we know that Bush did order the program, so that effectively dismisses any and all lawsuits against the telcoms. This has nothing to do w/sovereign immunity - this isn't a common-law defense or a part of established law. It's an attempt to cover up an illegal spying program after the fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #107
147. That is not correct.
Number 1 - it is a certification from the AG that all the provisions of the newly enacted FISA law were complied with (eg, probable cause existed and no fourth amendment violations) and that the order came from GWB and it was lawful - lawful goes back to that silly ole probable cause, lawful warrant/order issued protection of the 4th amendment deal.

Additionally, the trial court on its own motion or on the motion of any party (to include the plaintiff) can review the certification to determine if the provisions were followed and meet and if probable cause existed and if the program/monitoring was legal.

Should there be a dismissal based upon the certification that dismissal can be appealed and again, the review sought and a legal determination by the court.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #147
150. Nice spin, but...
OK, this:

"Number 1 - it is a certification from the AG that all the provisions of the newly enacted FISA law were complied with (eg, probable cause existed and no fourth amendment violations) and that the order came from GWB and it was lawful - lawful goes back to that silly ole probable cause, lawful warrant/order issued protection of the 4th amendment deal. "

Boils down to this: The Telcom presents a Bushie "get out of jail" card & gets off scot-free. The lawsuit is dismissed immediately. What you're missing is that the court DOESN'T do any examination of whether there was probable cause, Constitutional violations, etc. etc. That's usually the job of the judicial branch, but here the executive branch (President) decides all that for them. The Pres "certifies" that it's legal & then the court MUST dismiss the lawsuit. The new law completely eviscerates the role of judicial review & the judicial branch itself. The Constitution says that the courts must interpret the laws; this law hands that role to the President & turns the judicial branch into nothing more than a rubber stamp.

This law PREVENTS the courts from doing any examination of whether the spying violated the Fourth Amendment, FISA or Americans' right to privacy. That's the whole point. Because based on what's already been revealed, this surveillance program didn't first require "probable cause" or any suspicion of wrongdoing - they just vacuumed up all phone & Internet communications. The program would FAIL any judicial review of its constitutionality - that's why this law is intended to prevent the courts from ever investigating the program. It's CYA on a massive scale, and the Democratic Congress is helping the Bush Adm. do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #150
152. Yes, the court does get to review the AG's certification upon it's own
Edited on Mon Jul-07-08 11:10 PM by merh
motion or upon the motion of any party to the suit.

Please don't say what the bill says if you don't know what it provides.

Here, will it help if you read it?


SEC. 802. PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING STATUTORY DEFENSES.

(a) Requirement for Certification- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a civil action may not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court against any person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community, and shall be promptly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the district court of the United States in which such action is pending that--

(1) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to an order of the court established under section 103(a) directing such assistance;

(2) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to a certification in writing under section 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) or 2709(b) of title 18, United States Code;

(3) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to a directive under section 102(a)(4), 105B(e), as added by section 2 of the Protect America Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-55), or 702(h) directing such assistance;

(4) in the case of a covered civil action, the assistance alleged to have been provided by the electronic communication service provider was--

(A) in connection with an intelligence activity involving communications that was--

(i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007; and

(ii) designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation for a terrorist attack, against the United States; and

(B) the subject of a written request or directive, or a series of written requests or directives, from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community (or the deputy of such person) to the electronic communication service provider indicating that the activity was--

(i) authorized by the President; and

(ii) determined to be lawful; or

(5) the person did not provide the alleged assistance.

(b) Judicial Review-

(1) REVIEW OF CERTIFICATIONS- A certification under subsection (a) shall be given effect unless the court finds that such certification is not supported by substantial evidence provided to the court pursuant to this section.-- (SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE - that's pretty important and is not just the AG signing off saying "it's cool".)

(2) SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS- In its review of a certification under subsection (a), the court may examine the court order, certification, written request, or directive described in subsection (a) and any relevant court order, certification, written request, or directive submitted pursuant to subsection (d).

(c) Limitations on Disclosure- If the Attorney General files a declaration under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, that disclosure of a certification made pursuant to subsection (a) or the supplemental materials provided pursuant to subsection (b) or (d) would harm the national security of the United States, the court shall--

(1) review such certification and the supplemental materials in camera and ex parte; and

(2) limit any public disclosure concerning such certification and the supplemental materials, including any public order following such in camera and ex parte review, to a statement as to whether the case is dismissed and a description of the legal standards that govern the order, without disclosing the paragraph of subsection (a) that is the basis for the certification.

(d) Role of the Parties- Any plaintiff or defendant in a civil action may submit any relevant court order, certification, written request, or directive to the district court referred to in subsection (a) for review and shall be permitted to participate in the briefing or argument of any legal issue in a judicial proceeding conducted pursuant to this section, but only to the extent that such participation does not require the disclosure of classified information to such party. To the extent that classified information is relevant to the proceeding or would be revealed in the determination of an issue, the court shall review such information in camera and ex parte, and shall issue any part of the courts written order that would reveal classified information in camera and ex parte and maintain such part under seal.

(e) Nondelegation- The authority and duties of the Attorney General under this section shall be performed by the Attorney General (or Acting Attorney General) or the Deputy Attorney General.

(f) Appeal- The courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from interlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States granting or denying a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment under this section.

(g) Removal- A civil action against a person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community that is brought in a State court shall be deemed to arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States and shall be removable under section 1441 of title 28, United States Code.

(h) Relationship to Other Laws- Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit any otherwise available immunity, privilege, or defense under any other provision of law.

(i) Applicability- This section shall apply to a civil action pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.


There is no spin to repeating what the bills says. It is you spinning.

You will note that the review allows the court the opportunity to see even classified information, that so called "states secret" - the court gets to determine if the certification is appropriate and/or warranted. And yes, dismissals can be appealed and the appellate court gets to review the dismissal, without a finding of fact, without a lawful determination, the appeals court will return it to the district court to make such a determination.

The bill requires that the act be lawful, legal - that both the 1st and 4th amendment rights of US citizens be protected.

Please know that today governmental agencies get to plead defenses like the defense of sovereign immunity. Courts are familiar with this type of thing, that the government says "it was legal, it was within the purview of the job" - the courts don't dismiss actions just because the gov says they should, they resent the government interfering with their functions and they know that the protection of the citizens rights is tantamount to the protection of our system of justice.

If, as you say, it is well known that the monitoring projects did not require probable cause, no court is going to believe a certification made by the AG that says the action was lawful. To be lawful means that they must have probable cause (as outlined in this section), that they must comply with the 4th amendment.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #4
108. They've been getting around that by using "standing"
If you didn't know you've been spied upon, how can you file a lawsuit ? If your information is part of a vacuum approach to information gathering, which corporations have taken to mean once you "give" them your information, it now belongs to the corporation, how can you claim you were wronged ? This is all part of the

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
http://abacus-ms.com/privacy/glbact/glboutline.htm

"
Exception 313.15:

* With consumer consent
* To protect the confidentiality or security of records
* To protect against or prevent actual or potential fraud
* For required institutional risk control or for resolving consumer disputes or inquires
* To persons holding a legal or beneficial interest relating to the consumer
* To persons acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity on behalf of the consumer (i.e., the consumer's attorney)
* To provide information to insurance rate advisory organizations, persons assessing compliance with industry standards, the financial institution's attorneys, accountants or auditors
* To law enforcement entities or self-regulatory groups (to the extent permitted or required by law)
* To comply with Federal, State, or local laws
* To comply with subpoena or other judicial process
* To respond to summons or other requests from authorized government authorities
* Pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, to a consumer reporting agency or from a consumer report reported by consumer reporting agency
* In connection with a proposed or actual sale, merger, transfer or exchange of all or a portion of a business or operating unit"

Note the law enforcement entities exception ! NSA, FBI, you name the acronym, the corporation providing the information will hand it over. Telecoms included.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #2
52. It's important that criminal prosecutions are not held back... Civil litigation can be stopped...
... through "state secrets" privilege, which this administration has used HEAVILY to shut down civil litigation cases, which people like Sibel Edmonds, Maher Arar, etc. have discovered.

Different rules of evidence apply to criminal cases, which is why they couldn't "gray mail" Scooter Libby's case away from the courts since it was criminal. Of course the other remedy in his situation was to give him a pardon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #52
56. Actually, the "states secret" privilege has not prevailed in the
existing AT&T case and would not suffice under the proposed legislation as the court can see all information necessary to rule if the certification suffices and the case should be dismissed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #56
62. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #62
67. I am working for no one.
I am reading the legislation and agruing that you are misreading it. Does it bother you to be challenged?

Guess what, the actions that have been shut down can now use this law to request that it be reinstated and that the courts properly review the information, that the states secret privilege not be allowed to prevent lawful review as this law requires.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
justaregularperson Donating Member (153 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #67
113. You seem to have an axe to grind in this whole affair.. what is your angle?
Your entries in this dialog are attempting to cloud the reader's understanding of the impact of criminal vs civil liability. Why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 08:33 AM
Response to Reply #113
118. I have no axe to grind and my entries are meant to clarify.
You are clouding the issues but that may because you don't understand them. Nothing in this bill provides for criminal immunity. My discussions go to the allegation that it provides civil immunity and I do not believe it does. Put another way, any good plaintiff lawyer familiar with federal civil litigation and the doctrine of sovereign immunity and the Federal Tort Claims Act would have little trouble keeping the action alive. Defenses are not immunities and defenses are not accepted as plead but must be established or proven. Even with the certification regarding the defenses (not to be the certification for the FISA order), the certification can be reviewed upon motion of any party and/or on the court's own initiative and the review means that the AG must prove that the certification is appropriate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
justaregularperson Donating Member (153 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #118
128. You are incorrect
Five Myths About the New Wiretapping Law
Why it's a lot worse than you think.

http://www.slate.com/id/2194254 /


Myth No. 3: The courts will still review the telecom cases.

Perhaps most controversially, the bill effectively pardons the telecom giants that assisted the Bush administration in the warrantless wiretapping program. They will now be shielded from dozens of civil lawsuits brought against them after their involvement was exposed. House Democrats insist that the telecoms are not automatically getting off the hook. Instead, the companies must go before a federal judge. But here's the catch: For the suits against them to be "promptly dismissed," they must demonstrate to the judge not that what they did was legal but only that the White House told them to do it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #128
130. The myth debunking is wrong.
Edited on Mon Jul-07-08 03:35 PM by merh
Go read the bill, stop letting others think for you.

The person that wrote that article has no clue about the structure of sentences and the fact that the language of the bill speaks for itself.

`(B) the subject of a written request or directive, or a series of written requests or directives, from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community (or the deputy of such person) to the electronic communication service provider indicating that the activity was--

`(i) authorized by the President; and

`(ii) determined to be lawful; or

`(5) the person did not provide the alleged assistance.


AND DETERMINED TO BE LAWFUL - gosh that leaves it up to the courts to determine whether or not it was lawful, it means reviews are to be perfunctory as the certification may be granted by the AG but the court will, on its own or at the request of the plaintiffs, be asked to determine if the action was legal.

If you know that writer tell him to go study some civil liberty lawsuits against governmental agencies and/or employees. He will see how wrong he is if he bothered to do that.

Oh, and to further debunk his take on the legislation, he misses what this legislation does provide - it provides that no information is too sensitive, that no information can be kept from the court to assist it in making a determination if the monitoring and/or targeting is legal. The government cannot hide behind state secrets.

Shame the guy didn't actually read to understand rather than read to criticize.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #2
73. Civil charges could go beyond the administration and implicate some in Congress
so you will see a continued push to kill the civil suits before they can proceed to trial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #2
76. And I guess you are saying what I am saying -
Edited on Sun Jul-06-08 12:47 PM by truedelphi
That the Constitution is very important and that we should not pass dubious bills that in any event will not strengthen our National Security but in all events, will prove more of a noose around our individual freedoms, those few that we somewhat have left
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DallasNE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #2
109. But That Is What They Said After Watergate
It will happen again, even if some of the lesser crooks go to jail. Ford's pardon of Nixon assured that and Bush reinforced it with his clemency for Scooter Libby. It is doubtful we will ever learn why Qwest lost that contract but it sure looks bad on the surface. And so does going after insider trading. Martha Stewart was a big Democratic supporters and they go after her. Insider trading, which I suspect is pretty wide-spread, is only enforced against those with political liability.

But to think corruption can be cleaned up without public financing of federal elections is just wishful thinking. Even justice is corrupted so get used to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #1
14. not so. It says if the fed govt asked then they are immune from prosecution. you did not
read it. or even summaries, apparently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 05:00 AM
Response to Reply #14
20. he read spin
and believed it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #20
104. yep. merh is spinning all over the place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #104
114. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #104
148. LOL - you could address the posts to you and stop attacking me
Have the courage to actually discuss the issues, read the statute and be willing to debate it and not take the words of others. Think for yourself.

What I have posted is not spin, it is actually called debate. You have your position and I don't agree and challenge it. I post why I don't agree and actually use the words of the statute and legal concepts to support my position, you attack me.

You want an echo chamber and I don't think this topic deserves it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 09:04 AM
Response to Reply #14
32. Not so, read again.
It says that if pres asked and if the action was LEGAL. Like all defenses, it is tantamount on the party raising it to prove that the defense applies. If the action was illegal, if it violated the civil rights of US citizens, the defense is not available to the party - the action continues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #32
55. WRONG AGAIN, and more spin by you!
It says if it was "determined to be legal" and that is a loophole of immense proportions! It means if they wrote a legal finding to cover their political arses (as they always do) and not whether or not the court can adjudicate regarding actual legality.

Even if you can conjure a motion to try to keep te action alive, he entire burden is shifted to the plaintiffs, and years from now when they are finally shut down by the Supremes or some appeal or ruling, and have spent millions, we will know nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #55
58. Wrong again
The certification is subject to review and the court can see all information necessary to review the certification, even highly classified, states secrets.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #55
63. The court gets to review the certification.
If the plaintiff alleges that there was no warrant issued, no lawful order, no probable cause and asks that the court review the certification and the basis of the surveillance, then the court will do so. That is how these type of actions exist - if it is a blanket order authorizing the surveillance of all US communications with suspected foreign terrorist "A", the court can see that obtaining the communications of all US citizens without probable cause is a violation of the 4th amendment. It is pretty simple and that is why the AT&T action continues.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #63
80. It should be pretty simple to see that the FISA bill didn't need to
be amended until it was broken. In the meantime, this program is conscious of people's civil liberties, as am I. This is a limited program I repeat, limited. And it's limited to calls from outside the United States, to calls within the United States."
Turns out thousands of Americans and resident foreigners have been or are being monitored and recorded by the NSA

I love the way we always start secret spy programs with great vows that the information shall be guarded and the innocent protected -- and it turns out one of the first to make use to the NSA program for his own purposes was that parfait, gentile soul of discretion John Bolton,

Another reason to be deeply worried about a huge domestic spying operation is that it will inevitably be manned by nincompoops.
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/30440 /

Further more why are we being spied on? Why do we have to go to court to hold the collectors of our personal data accountable? You sound like citizens can fight the resources of these spy programs like it's an every day deal. This is a wrong assumption of how Citizens in America should have to operate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #80
85. GWB began his domestic spying with the existing FISA law in place
that proves we can't just settle for what is. This law is far from perfect but it is even further from the civil liberties buster that some allege.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #32
72. I wish it said that, but it does not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #1
23. But there will be no way to prove if they lie, if given immunity.
If given immunity, who will look the records over? No one, because the need goes out the window.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #23
31. Please provide me the provision of this proposed law that gives immunity.
From my reading of the bill, immunity is only mentioned once and it is not about giving anyone any immunity.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #1
24. That is patently false. What the legislation does is legalize "Unitary Executive Decrees"
in that if it was requested by the Executive, they are off the hook whether legal or not, whether they knew it was illegal or not.

It is, in essence, a get out of jail free card for Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #24
28. No it does not.
Please, post the provision that provides as you say.

Oh, just a little FYI - GWB doesn't need the FISA law. At the end of his term he can pardon all involved.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #28
35. It still prevents a court from ruling on telecom legality issues. Maybe invulnerable
would be a better word than immunity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #35
38. No it does not.
Read 802 again, it provides that the actions must be legal to be certified to, that they did not violate the law (how can you say it didn't if no probable cause existed and no warrant or order issued to conduct the surveillance in violation of the 4th?)

It also provides that the district courts can review the certification when asked by any of the parties and that the review allows for review of "classified" information.

It is up to the court to rule on the defenses raised and the certifications issued.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #24
30. So the WH gets willful ignorance of the facts and/or events in any situation
and it gets legitimized by the legislation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #30
39. Not at all, where do you get that?
If you were paying attention to the AT&T litigation that is pending you will see that the same type of defenses have been raised, even to the point that defending the action would make public classified information that would damage our national security and/or the purported state purpose of the surveillance. The district court judge hearing that matter has not allowed the government to rest on the laurels of "classified and lawful", he is requiring that the litigation continue and that plaintiffs be allowed to put on their case and prove that their civil rights were violated by the law, that the government and the telecoms violated the laws and damages are required.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #39
75. I can't explain it to you.
No offense, others have tried in this thread. You just can't understand, so I will leave you with your opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #75
89. LOL - you can't explain it because that is not what the bill does.
God forbid that someone actually analyze the legislation, apply it practically and use experience to rationalize that the legislation is not what others are trying to make it out to be. Hey, if this law bothers you, go read up on the Federal Tort Claims Act, that one will send you over the edge.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #89
102. Sure, whatever you say.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #75
132. Well, but no one else is posting any parts of the bill in support of their
positions.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #1
34. Here are the FACTS, not the R spin:
Edited on Sun Jul-06-08 09:16 AM by L. Coyote
assistance means access to information facilities, or another form of assistance.

a civil action may not lie or be maintained ... and shall be promptly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies ... was ... the subject of a written request or directive ... from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community ... indicating that the activity was ... authorized by the President; and ... determined to be lawful ...

================
So, if the splitters were installed and Bush said to do it and there was a "determination" by his minions that he could (like the memos that said he could torture) then it is automatically dismissed.

This is just an ambush waiting to happen, because we know they wrote legal findings to cover their actions at every turn.

What this law says, in effect, is that if they wrote legal findings to cover their asses, no matter how screwed up of totally unconstitutional their "cover Bush's ass" findings were, all their criminal co-conspirator's asses are covered too by the "cover Bush's ass" findings!!

NOW, combine this with routing the communications overseas (post 22 below) where the spying happened, and we have an "everyone gets out of jail free" scenario because US law does not reach to the facilities where the data steam was sent!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #34
37. Step one is to read the title of the provision (802) and to understand its purpose.
Edited on Sun Jul-06-08 10:07 AM by merh
SEC. 802. PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING STATUTORY DEFENSES

The provision outlines statutory defenses it does not grant immunity. Rule 12 of the Civil Rules of Procedures enacted/codified in the 80's or 90's outlines defenses, it hasn't stopped civil suits. When a party sues they file a complaint, the opposing party, the defendant answers and raises the defenses. Raising a defense does not immediately dismiss the action, the defense must be proven.

Here, the AG does certify to specifics but that certification is subject to review, if certification is made you can be certain that the plaintiffs will seek a full review by the district court as they are allowed. Also, please note that part of the certification is that the actions were legal - did not violate the law.

No law passed by congress can violate the constitutional rights of US citizens.

No judge will dismiss an action if there is a possibility that the constitutional rights of the party have been violated. Sovereign immunity is a defense that will preclude actions against government employees/agents. Sovereign immunity does not prevail if the agent/employee violated the law and/or the constitutional rights of the plaintiff.

(a) Requirement for Certification- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a civil action may not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court against any person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community, and shall be promptly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the district court of the United States in which such action is pending that--

(1) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to an order of the court established under section 103(a) directing such assistance;

(2) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to a certification in writing under section 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) or 2709(b) of title 18, United States Code;

(3) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to a directive under section 102(a)(4), 105B(e), as added by section 2 of the Protect America Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-55), or 702(h) directing such assistance;

(4) in the case of a covered civil action, the assistance alleged to have been provided by the electronic communication service provider was--

(A) in connection with an intelligence activity involving communications that was--

(i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007; and

(ii) designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation for a terrorist attack, against the United States; and

(B) the subject of a written request or directive, or a series of written requests or directives, from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community (or the deputy of such person) to the electronic communication service provider indicating that the activity was--

(i) authorized by the President; and

(ii) determined to be lawful; or

(5) the person did not provide the alleged assistance.



(b) Judicial Review -

(1) REVIEW OF CERTIFICATIONS- A certification under subsection (a) shall be given effect unless the court finds that such certification is not supported by substantial evidence provided to the court pursuant to this section.

(2) SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS- In its review of a certification under subsection (a), the court may examine the court order, certification, written request, or directive described in subsection (a) and any relevant court order, certification, written request, or directive submitted pursuant to subsection (d).

(c) Limitations on Disclosure- If the Attorney General files a declaration under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, that disclosure of a certification made pursuant to subsection (a) or the supplemental materials provided pursuant to subsection (b) or (d) would harm the national security of the United States, the court shall--

(1) review such certification and the supplemental materials in camera and ex parte; and

(2) limit any public disclosure concerning such certification and the supplemental materials, including any public order following such in camera and ex parte review, to a statement as to whether the case is dismissed and a description of the legal standards that govern the order, without disclosing the paragraph of subsection (a) that is the basis for the certification.

(d) Role of the Parties- Any plaintiff or defendant in a civil action may submit any relevant court order, certification, written request, or directive to the district court referred to in subsection (a) for review and shall be permitted to participate in the briefing or argument of any legal issue in a judicial proceeding conducted pursuant to this section, but only to the extent that such participation does not require the disclosure of classified information to such party. To the extent that classified information is relevant to the proceeding or would be revealed in the determination of an issue, the court shall review such information in camera and ex parte, and shall issue any part of the courts written order that would reveal classified information in camera and ex parte and maintain such part under seal.

(e) Nondelegation- The authority and duties of the Attorney General under this section shall be performed by the Attorney General (or Acting Attorney General) or the Deputy Attorney General.

(f) Appeal- The courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from interlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States granting or denying a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment under this section.

(g) Removal- A civil action against a person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community that is brought in a State court shall be deemed to arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States and shall be removable under section 1441 of title 28, United States Code.

(h) Relationship to Other Laws- Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit any otherwise available immunity, privilege, or defense under any other provision of law.

(i) Applicability- This section shall apply to a civil action pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #37
45. You are SPINNING this! Step two is to understand the implications of the language.
A good rule of law:

If there is a loophole big enough to house the Big Bang, try not to ignore it.

... a civil action may not lie or be maintained ... and shall be promptly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies ... that ... the assistance ... was ... the subject of a written request ... from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community (or the deputy of such person) to the electronic communication service provider indicating that the activity was authorized by the President; and determined to be lawful .....


If the AG says so!!! Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #45
46. Help me L. Coyote, because my inclination is to
believe that if it CAN be parsed to the devil's work it WILL be so parsed.

In the quote it says "a civil action may not lie or be maintained". . How would this also include a criminal action (which, I think, is the take that Olbermann has on it)?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #46
48. Criminal actions cannot be brought except by the authorities!
And, that means what? In the current situation, that means Mukasey as to charge Bush, etc. Never happen!!

And, when they used a loophole---routing everything overseas to do the spying where no US law applies---
where is the criminal act, what is it, and who did it?
You may be left with trying to convict a technician of installing equipment!!

This is clearly a law written by the firm Sly, Fox, and Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #45
51. I am not spinning this, you are.
The legislation is very clear and if you have been paying attention as you want others to believe, the federal courts hearing these actions have not "given in" to the bullshit defenses that the government and the telecoms have put forth. They are allowing the plaintiffs to put on their cases, to have discovery, to pursue the actions.

What part of the provision do you not understand?

(b) Judicial Review-

(1) REVIEW OF CERTIFICATIONS- A certification under subsection (a) shall be given effect unless the court finds that such certification is not supported by substantial evidence provided to the court pursuant to this section.

(2) SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS- In its review of a certification under subsection (a), the court may examine the court order, certification, written request, or directive described in subsection (a) and any relevant court order, certification, written request, or directive submitted pursuant to subsection (d).

(c) Limitations on Disclosure- If the Attorney General files a declaration under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, that disclosure of a certification made pursuant to subsection (a) or the supplemental materials provided pursuant to subsection (b) or (d) would harm the national security of the United States, the court shall--

(1) review such certification and the supplemental materials in camera and ex parte; and

(2) limit any public disclosure concerning such certification and the supplemental materials, including any public order following such in camera and ex parte review, to a statement as to whether the case is dismissed and a description of the legal standards that govern the order, without disclosing the paragraph of subsection (a) that is the basis for the certification.

(d) Role of the Parties- Any plaintiff or defendant in a civil action may submit any relevant court order, certification, written request, or directive to the district court referred to in subsection (a) for review and shall be permitted to participate in the briefing or argument of any legal issue in a judicial proceeding conducted pursuant to this section, but only to the extent that such participation does not require the disclosure of classified information to such party. To the extent that classified information is relevant to the proceeding or would be revealed in the determination of an issue, the court shall review such information in camera and ex parte, and shall issue any part of the courts written order that would reveal classified information in camera and ex parte and maintain such part under seal.

(e) Nondelegation- The authority and duties of the Attorney General under this section shall be performed by the Attorney General (or Acting Attorney General) or the Deputy Attorney General.

(f) Appeal- The courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from interlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States granting or denying a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment under this section.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #51
57. Let me guess. You have never practiced law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #57
61. It would appear you haven't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #61
64. FYI, I have pleaded before the US Supreme Court! Have you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #64
65. I find that hard to believe since you cannot see that there is
nothing in this legislation that grants the immunity as you allege.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redstate_democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-08 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #34
160. Well, if they can just write a memo to subvert the constitution
why not just write a memo saying all left hand folks are to be enslaved. I'm assuming there is some modicum of checks and balances by way of the legislature and judicial branch if necessary. If the DOJ wrote a memo stating something was "lawful" and "determined" as such, what would be the check against that action? The Judicial branch, I'm assuming. This statute says to me that even if the DOJ says something is "lawful" and "Determined" as such, the plaintiffs can still ask for an independent determination by the judge and if that disclosure is too sensitive for the common folk to be privy to, then the judge will review the info in camera or in his chambers and then make a determination of whether or not the person who wrote the memo and "determined" it the search was "lawful" was smoking crack rock, was acting without any legal basis and contrary to the constitution, or just fucking insane. If the judge determines that the search was done without probable cause (like a massive sweep would most definitely have to be), then the action was unlawful regardless of what a memo out of the executive branch says.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Heather MC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #1
106. then I am confused why are people Mad at Barack for supporting the bill?
It's sound's like FISA will not Protect them from Legal Action for breaking the Law
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
justaregularperson Donating Member (153 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #106
115. SPIN accomplished. A satisfied customer
Merh is spinning. I wonder why?

Let me ask this, if there is no attempt to offer any sense of immunity from prosecution why even bother with the legislation?

You have been following this as I have, I am sure, and we all know that the corporate masters have been trying to get themselves off the hook and our leadership has attempted multiple times to pass legislation to do that. Why even mess with the law at this point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #115
119. Why is this being put forth now you ask?
Because if the Dems vote against it they are weak on terrorism. It is that simple. That's why the repubs keep watering down the dem version and including the language which some deem to be "immunity granting". It has become a wonderful issue to beat Obama over the head with so it is working just as they like.

You get all twisted about criminal immunity, no bill is needed for that - GWB can pardon the whole slew of 'em, his folks and the telecoms, as he leaves office and congress can't do a damned thing.

It isn't me spinning, the spinning comes from those that twist the legislation to be more than it is.

As I have asked others to do, I will ask you to research the doctrine of sovereign immunity. That doctrine affords the immunity to government employees for torts which occur as a result of their official actions. Those agents and agency heads that ordered the spying on US citizens can claim that immunity, the only problem is, that immunity fails (as do the defenses afforded by this legislation) if the law was broken, if the constitutional rights of the plaintiff were violated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
justaregularperson Donating Member (153 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #119
126. So it does offer criminal immunity, which is different from what you were saying before
So you believe this bill is needed to claim to be strong on terrorism and that any criminal immunity that occurs in this bill does not matter. I disagree with that, but that is a more honest argument than blurring other's understanding of what the bill does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #126
127. No, I never claimed it offers criminal immunity (as it does not)
I have said the very obvious, GWB doesn't need this bill to give immunity to criminals, he has the constitutional right to pardon anyone he sees fit.

There is no criminal immunity in this bill, it is a bill about protecting our nation for the foreign enemies that would undermine our safety and security, it is about legally spying on potential enemies, tracking down that bad guys, etc., that is what makes it appear to the general publicas as a bill necessary for our national security.

I've never blurred my understand or the purpose of the bill, you have as is clear given you have blurred my responses to you and try to twist them.

Guess what, your opinion of my posts means little to me, you have demonstrated you don't want the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redstate_democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-08 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #119
161. Yay!
:bounce: You really know what you're talking about, dontcha!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
134. So . . . how can the spying alliance with corporations 7 months pre-9/11 be immune--???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ColbertWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-05-08 11:35 PM
Response to Original message
3. This cannot be said enough.
You know, with all the information out there about the spying, very little actually discusses when it happened.

Of course, the GOP sheeple can't handle that much info, especially when it contradicts what they already believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 12:14 AM
Response to Original message
6. The good faith argument is propaganda
Edited on Sun Jul-06-08 12:22 AM by noise
Why don't we know what Michael Hayden knew about this program? Why did he keep his job as Director of the NSA after 9/11? Why was he laterally promoted to DDNI and then CIA Director? Is it a coincidence that he supports the warrantless surveillance program and the harsh interrogation program?

Hayden on the declassification of the executive summary of the CIA 9/11 IG internal review:

The long, grueling fight against terrorism, which depends in very real part on the quality of our intelligence, demands that we keep our focus on the present and the future. We must draw lessons from our pastand we havewithout becoming captive to it. I thought the release of this report would distract officers serving their country on the frontlines of a global conflict. It will, at a minimum, consume time and attention revisiting ground that is already well plowed.

Link


It seems Hayden wants the public to accept the good faith argument...nobody at CIA did anything improper before 9/11 and it is in bad taste to question CIA tactics in the WoT. The public should shut up and wave the pom poms.

ETA: I wonder if Hayden has ever been asked to explain the pre-9/11 surveillance program.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 02:53 AM
Response to Reply #6
17. The reason Hayden was kept on after 9/11 is two-fold: 1) as then NSA Director he is the "keeper of
the keys" for the US Intelligence Community (IC), and knows precisely what electronic surveillance was (and was not) directed at the al-Qaeda cells known to operating inside the country before the attacks, and what was carried out with FISA warrants and what wasn't; (2) he has convinced Congressional overseers and his uniformed colleagues that he, and those immediately under his command, operated properly under the circumstances.

Any pre-9/11 illegalities involving the NSA, such as warrantless phone and internet surveillance, was systematic and approved at the highest levels of the White House (both Clinton and Bush) with Congressional notification.

The decisions to violate FISA were made "above his pay grade", and his Agency carried out what it was told to do.

All this will be coming out. In the meantime, read this for the details: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00257.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 04:45 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. Moles
"Colleen Rowley, a lawyer in the Minneapolis FBI office frustrated after the CIA refused to provide materials supporting warrants to open Moussaouis laptop -- and by the obstruction of FBI headquarters later conjectured that her own investigation was being sabotaged by moles."

The "moles" that were directing this false-flag operation, methinks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #17
87. It sounds like he was a team player
for a secretive (and likely treasonous) Executive Branch agenda.

CIA officials (like Tenet) can't have it both ways. He can't claim he was freaked out about an attack and then claim he relied on watchlisting procedures to notify the FBI about al Qaeda operatives inside the US. That story is simply not a credible explanation. Are we to believe Tenet found it more important to obey likely treasonous Executive Branch orders than prevent a terrorist attack?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #87
124. Tenet tried to be a team player, and failed. He's no longer DCI, as a result.
Mueller is definitely a team play, as he was as a US Attorney under Bush, Sr. during the Iran-Contra and BCCI capers.

Tenet fell on his sword for Dubya, which explains why he hasn't been indicted. He's hinted since, however, that he's uncomfortable in that position, and did come out and state publicly that he and Cofer Black did go out of their way in July and August to try to warn Condi and her boss that bad guys were here and in the final stages of preparing for their long-awaited hijackings.

If President Obama orders the three to testify publicly, and to release agency records, they will have no other choice than to sing like birds. It's a comforting thought, anyway.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCKit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 12:39 AM
Response to Original message
8. Where the hell are the apologists?
Still getting over their hangovers after celebrating *'s stunning victory at Monticello?

Bwahahahahahahaha!

The FISA amendment needs to have language specifically exempting they spying AFTER 9/11. Let them explain the rest in court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 01:05 AM
Response to Original message
9. So I guess it didn't much help Bush find the "terrarists" who allegedly did 9/11 . . ????
I'd love to see the list of those he's spying on ---


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pansypoo53219 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 01:07 AM
Response to Original message
10. has ANYBODY asked what the hell Bush
was looking for? certainly not the 9/11 conspirators.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 01:13 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. See that cowed congress? THAT is part of your answer
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCKit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #10
83. That would *PROVE* LIHOP.
Hey, this could get fun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #10
141. Presumably, this was just the usual spying operation + political . . . EXCEPT . . .
Edited on Mon Jul-07-08 08:20 PM by defendandprotect
if they were planning 9/11, there would have been things they would have wanted to know.

Maybe to move some people out of their way?

In fact, at the moment, I can't remember how we learned about all this --- ?

HOWEVER, weren't there people who understood that they were being followed and spied on?

So . . . after securing info . . . there were follow-up activities . . .


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trthnd4jstc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 01:20 AM
Response to Original message
12. Bush and Cheney should be Impeached
Why don't the Pelosi, and Wrangle, act to Impeach the Bush, and the cheney? Because maybe they wish to bring down America also. Maybe they want Armegeddon also. Maybe they are in on the Money Conspiracy. Well, DUH, Your Shitty Economic System is falling Apart. Congress Wake Up. We are suffering here. Nobody is doing anything about it. Are Government is in Junk Bond Status. We are Spiralling Down. Bush and Congress helped to weaken the dollar by running the Government at a deficit. Both Parties are Guilty. The Demcs just less so. But Both Parties are not doing anything right now to fix our economy. You people at the top want us to die. Is that right? Is this why the economy is falling apart. Is it falling apart so that we can have an Armegeddon. You do not have a right to make Armegeddon happen. You are not G-d. End the War Against Life. Stop the Exploitation of the Earth, and Life. End the Tyranny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AzDar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 01:35 AM
Response to Original message
13. K & R ....
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 01:45 AM
Response to Original message
15. Thank-you. I ahve been screaming this. Congress does not ever mention it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PATRICK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 02:20 AM
Response to Original message
16. At a time
when even by its own admissions the WH was not taking on terrorism or Intel on full steam. I think, besides an overall power grab ploy, it was to really monitor a terrorist threat to see if they WOULD look negligent or culpably incompetent should it be extremely "out there". Ignore but listen- for the same underlying reason, which was to manipulate disastrous events to pre-determined criminal policy.

Of course, we have to guess. That is the fun of secrecy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burythehatchet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #16
44. Insider trading, pure and simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 04:58 AM
Response to Original message
19. I get it
shame on DUers who DON'T FUCKING GET IT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maineman Donating Member (411 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 08:36 AM
Response to Original message
21. Hey Obama, vote against telecom immunity, or
are you the pandering, say- and do-whatever-it-takes, dance-with-corporations phony you have been sounding like recently?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 08:47 AM
Response to Original message
22. AND, it was illegal because they SPIED ON EVERYONE all the time. Source here:
Deja DU: Are ALL COMMUNICATIONS routed overseas to circumvent US law and the Constitution?
Nov-09-07 - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I was told years ago that ALL fiber optic communication traffic was routed overseas so that "everything" was moved outside the protections of the law and Constitution and ANYTHING could be monitored. I thought the idea quite fantastic even though it came from a very reliable source that would know exactly such things. Then, the story of the fiber optic splitters hit my radar. I now see now how easily exactly that, routing ALL COMMUNICATIONS overseas, was accomplished.

Is that Bush's and the Telecom's HUGE crime hidden and covered-up behind this story?

If the telecoms get immunity, will it aid in covering up Bush's crime.
ABSOLUTELY! That is why it is so important to the Rs! Support = obstruction of justice.

Have we arrived at the point in the history of the Bushco junta where
laws passed and people nominated are part of crimes of obstructing justice?

===================
AT&T Whistleblower: Telecom Immunity Is A Cover-Up
By Spencer Ackerman - Nov 7, 2007
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004662.php


Earlier today we flagged that Mark Klein, who uncovered a secret surveillance room run by the NSA while employed as a San Francisco-based technician for AT&T, is in Washington to lobby against granting retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies. In an interview this afternoon, Klein explained why he traveled all the way from San Francisco to lobby Senators about the issue: if the immunity provision passes, Americans may never know how extensive the surveillance program was -- or how deeply their privacy may have been invaded.

"The president has not presented this truthfully," said Klein, a 62-year old retiree. "He said it was about a few people making calls to the Mideast. But I know this physical equipment. It copies everything. There's no selection of anything, at all -- the splitter copies entire data streams from the internet, phone conversations, e-mail, web-browsing. Everything."

What Klein unearthed -- you can read it here -- points to a nearly unbounded surveillance program. Its very location in San Francisco suggests that the program was "massively domestic" in its focus, he said. "If they really meant what they say about only wanting international stuff, you wouldn't want it in San Francisco or Atlanta. You'd want to be closer to the border where the lines come in from the ocean so you pick up international calls. You only do it in San Francisco if you want domestic stuff. The location of this stuff contradicts their story .....

=======================
NSA Monitors All Web Traffic, Says Ex-AT&T Employee

NSA Monitors All Web Traffic, Says Ex-AT&T Employee
Tom Corelis (Blog) - Nov 10, 2007
http://www.dailytech.com/NSA+Monitors+All+Web+Traffic+S...


Felt "forced to the connect the Big Brother Machine" if he wanted to keep his job

Mark Klein, the former AT&T technician and whistleblower who helped kick off the AT&T/NSA eavesdropping scandal, clarified further details regarding what he witnessed while connecting a secret NSA eavesdropping facility: secure room 641A in AT&Ts San Francisco switching center, presumably commissioned by the NSA, received copies of all the traffic its splitters were connected to, including both international and domestic e-mails, web traffic, and phone calls, both from AT&Ts customers as well as other providers.

Previous statements by the government, AT&T and President Bush indicated that the only affected communications are communications relevant to national security, like those of suspected terrorists and suspicious foreign nationals. According to Klein, however, the technology used to connect the secure room was far more democratic, consisting of simple, dumb splitters incapable of any kind of contextual filtering: essentially, room 641A received a duplicate of every fiber-optic signal routed through facilities.

Klein, appearing on MSNBCs Countdown with Keith Olbermann show, told viewers about his personal association with secure room 641A. When I was a technician, I had the engineering/wiring documents, which told me how the splitter was wired to the secret room I had to know in order to do my job, he said, so I know that whatever went across those cables was copied; the entire datastream was copied into the secret room.

Referring to the equipment itself, Klein states, the splitter device has no selective capability, it just copies everything. .............

=======================
Interview: AT&T Whistleblower Mark Klein on Bush's Illegal Surveillance and Retroactive Immunity
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0dJJhLueEg

=======================
NSA Pressured LA Times To Kill Domestic Spying Story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOI1VGKcgGY

=======================
November 5th, 2007
AT&T Whistleblower to Urge Senate to Reject Blanket Immunity for Telecoms
Press Conference on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, November 7
http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2007/11/05

Washington, D.C. - On Wednesday, November 7, at 10:30am, telecommunications technician and AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein will speak out at a press conference on Capitol Hill, explaining why he is asking lawmakers to reject immunity for telecoms who assisted the Bush administration's spying on millions of Americans.

Klein witnessed first-hand the technology AT&T built to assist the government's domestic warrantless wiretapping program at AT&T's main switching facility in San Francisco. As part of his job at AT&T, Klein connected high-speed fiber optic cables to sophisticated equipment that intercepted communications from AT&T customers and then copied and routed every single one to a room controlled by the National Security Agency (NSA). Klein has provided evidence for the Electronic Frontier Foundation's (EFF's) class-action lawsuit against AT&T for its role in the illegal spying.

"My job required me to enable the physical connections between AT&T customers' Internet communications and the NSA's illegal, wholesale copying machine for domestic emails, Internet phone conversations, web surfing and all other Internet traffic. I have first-hand knowledge of the clandestine collaboration between one giant telecommunications company, AT&T, and the National Security Agency to facilitate the most comprehensive illegal domestic spying program in history," said Klein.

Also speaking at the event Wednesday ...........

=======================
Judge Orders Telecommunications Companies to Preserve Evidence in Government Surveillance Cases
Ruling Advances EFF's Class-action Lawsuit Against AT&T
http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2007/11/06


San Francisco - A federal judge today ruled on a preservation motion filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), ordering that telecommunications companies must preserve any evidence of collaborating with the government in illegal spying on ordinary Americans.

In his ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker ordered the telecommunications companies to halt any routine destruction of documents or to arrange for the preservation of accurate copies. On December 14, each party must provide the court with confirmation that the court's order has been carried out. The court order did not require the government or the carriers to reveal whether or not they had any relevant evidence.

The government and the carriers had opposed the preservation motion, claiming that the government's invocation of the state secrets privilege made it impossible to proceed with a preservation order. In litigation, parties are typically required to preserve all relevant evidence.

For the judge's order:
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/393%20order.pdf

For more on the class-action lawsuit against AT&T:
http://www.eff.org/cases/att

===== MORE ======
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #22
122. Regardless of Where the Cables Run,
to the best of my knowledge the jurisdiction of a call is determined by the originating and terminating point. Has it been defined differently in this case?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 08:56 AM
Response to Original message
25. This means the Civil Immunity under the FISA Amendment Act of 2008 Does Not Apply
According to the current Amendment, a court order (as in FISA) had to be issued. Spying before 9/11 clearly wasn't under authorization of the FISA courts (or any other court).

See section 802 of the current Bill (PDF available here):
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM104_080619_fisapromis...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #25
95. This is why the whole amendment to the Fisa is wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 08:57 AM
Response to Original message
26. Former CEO Says U.S. Punished Phone Firm (Qwest)
Former chief executive Joseph P. Nacchio, convicted in April of 19 counts of insider trading, said the NSA approached Qwest more than six months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to court documents unsealed in Denver this week.

Details about the alleged NSA program have been redacted from the documents, but Nacchio's lawyer said last year that the NSA had approached the company about participating in a warrantless surveillance program to gather information about Americans' phone records.

In the court filings disclosed this week, Nacchio suggests that Qwest's refusal to take part in that program led the government to cancel a separate, lucrative contract with the NSA in retribution. He is using the allegation to try to show why his stock sale should not have been considered improper.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Echo In Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
27. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 09:00 AM
Response to Original message
29. Obama should be saying this every time he gets in front of a camera
If he doesn't the point is moot.

Don
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 09:05 AM
Response to Original message
33. Watergate was kidstuff compared to what this Administration has done.
People are starving for the truth. They are craving the truth like a pregnant women craves ice cream. We got to have it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #33
103. only a small % of the population understand what is going on
most are happy eating ice cream and watching football.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #33
138. Right . . . they had the jumping off point of Watergate, plus FISA already set up ---
and more intimidated telecom companies --- overall, lots of experience now in corruption,

lying -- and cover-up of crimes.

I doubt they want the judges to see the list of names --- the corps are probably more

trustworthy!

As someone was saying today . . . after the SURVEILLANCE then the "disappearances" begin.








Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 09:24 AM
Response to Original message
36. Deja DU: Nacchio and Qwest: Another Political Prosecution?
And the judge is another corrupt R!!!

Nacchio and Qwest: Another Political Prosecution?
Oct-15-07 - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

........ LOTS of info .........

=====================
Qwest: Another Political Prosecution?
BY Scott Horton - Oct 14, 2007
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/10/hbc-90001415

Last week, a career federal prosecutor friend told me, Most of us have come to agree that theres a real problem with political prosecutions on Bushs watch, and that needs to be addressed, but you need to remind your readers that this is something truly exceptional and that the great mass of cases involve the normal functioning of the law enforcement system, with career professionals who are detached from political considerations. For the record, I believe thats true. Im not sure how widespread the phenomenon of political prosecution is. I believe that it is no longer a question of whether such prosecutions have been broughtthats now very well established. How widespread is this phenomenon? Thats an important question and the answers are unclear.

.............
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FMArouet Donating Member (36 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
43. Legalizing Collecting Everything--on Everyone
Note the following passage from the FISA Amendment Act to be voted on next Tuesday. In particular, note the astonishing elastic clause: "...as such communications are stored...."

"(6) ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDER.The term electronic communication service provider means
(A) a telecommunications carrier, as that term is defined in section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153);
(B) a provider of electronic communication service, as that term is defined in section 2510 of title 18, United States Code;
(C) a provider of a remote computing service, as that term is defined in section 2711 of title 18, United States Code;
(D) any other communication service provider who has access to wire or electronic communications either as such communications are transmitted or as such communications are stored;"

D Wreck over at DailyKos had an excellent diary on this point yesterday here.

In short, wherever an e-mail, text message, instant message, credit card transaction, charitable contribution, phone call record, medical record, Google or Yahoo query, web page browsing history, web photo, or any other kind of data transmission is stored in a database somewhere on an ECSP hard drive, the government is claiming the lawful right to access and collect that data without a warrant.

NSA formerly collected electronic transmissions (i.e., communications in transit) of legitimate foreign intelligence targets. That was its charter. Now, apparently, NSA can go after virtually all stored data on even U.S. citizens wherever that data may exist, even (and perhaps especially) if it exists in the U.S. This change in NSA's charter is substantial and astonishing: in short it is a charter to collect all data on everyone--even stored data on hard drives rather than just carefully targeted data during transmission. And no one (except for Senator Feingold, Senator Dodd, Glenn Greenwald, and a few progressive bloggers) seems to notice or care.

Of course, NSA cannot possibly usefully filter data transmissions in real-time, especially if such transmissions are in languages other than English or are encrypted in some way (as with Skype, for example). However, by vacuuming up literally all such data and saving petabytes or exabytes of data in massive hard drive arrays, the government can then use sophisticated link analysis techniques to filter on individuals or groups of interest. Such analysis can be useful in unravelling a terrorist network, but one has to suspect, given Karl Rove's record of dirty tricks and the track record of the Bush/Gonzales/Mukasey Justice Department, that the stored data has also been used as the ultimate "opposition research" tool against potential political opponents.

If progressives find that kind of political threat offensive when wielded against them by Republicans, why are not Republicans in Congress fearful that the same threat could be wielded against them by a Democratic Administration? Should we not be seeing a coalition of prorgressives and genuine conservatives (who preach limited government) coming together to thwart this abomination of a FISA Amendment bill?

Goodbye, Fourth Amendment. Goodbye, Constitution.

Orwell, we have arrived. This is your Oceania. Total Information Awareness. Total Population Control.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #43
47. "as such communications are transmitted" meaning use of splitters legalized
and that means ALL fiber optic transmissions will be "legally" vacuumed up for the first time.

This is the HUGE change! EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FMArouet Donating Member (36 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #47
77. Exactly. Good point.
Everything transmitted. And if they miss something, everything saved on any company's hard drive, on anybody, anywhere in the U.S.

TIA (Total Information Awareness) = TPC (Total Population Control). Except that it really isn't.

The key irony in this approach may well be that the desire to vacuum up literally all data on everybody will become the supreme policy/intelligence goal in itself, while down-in-the-weeds intelligence analysis and targeting (which requires sophisticated foreign area and language expertise) will receive less emphasis and will make the intelligence and security services--and the multitude of private companies to whom they increasingly subcontract critical intelligence tasks--even less likely to identify and preempt actual terrorists.

There was no shortage of data and intelligence before 9/11. There was a dearth of well-focused analysis and preemption by law enforcement at the tactical, inter-agency level. Remember the brushed-off query by an FBI agent in Minneapolis who wondered about suspicious students at U.S. flight schools? Remember the two al Qaeda 9/11 operatives who slipped into the country through an international airport because the CIA did not insist that they be watchlisted in a timely manner by INS?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #43
144. Now . . . they would have needed to get thru some of this info fast . . .
with specific targets . . . where are the people "stored" who have been going thru this

info looking for info on political opponents for six years --- ???


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2Design Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
50. thr rolling over - just was too wide spread - it had to be coercion n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #50
145.  Tom Hartmann was talking about this point of view today . . ..
Edited on Mon Jul-07-08 08:44 PM by defendandprotect
I believe these people would do ANYTHING and I believe there has been blackmail and threats

and a huge number of murders.

And, I can believe that that it has to do with people changing their minds and not acting on

these crimes. But, I can't get to the reasoning out of it to completely believe it.


Let's say someone's husband has an odd income tax report --- they could make a lot of

trouble over it. The Rep. might think it's easier to let Bush go than to give up her

seat -- especially if she thinks Bush will be gone in 6 months.


But will so many make that kind of decisions? I'm not sure.


Plus it would take a lot of time to find this info --- pin point it --- work it thru.

I think we have something even more explosive going on ---

On the other hand, Waxman either lives a really pure life or they haven't gotten to him yet!

and I sure hope they don't!!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-08 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #50
159.  . . . but it's a large group of Dems . . . with some power . . .
why wouldn't they have some means of fighting back . . ???

I don't totally get this???

Though I do believe these people would do ANYTHING!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
59. Shhhhh...how dare you mutter an inconvenient truth??? Doncha know, we the people
are supposed to be kept in the dark?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 11:05 AM
Response to Original message
66. Yup.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
68. Bushco definitely initiated widespread domestic spying in early 2001.
And the time to get the goods on those activities is February, 2001, by congressional inquiry, aided by input from the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, and the new Justice Department.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
69. And Yet it Didn't PREVENT 9-11????????????
GET IT? GOT IT!!!


Spying doesn't help keep us secure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sunnystarr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #69
86. You're assuming they wanted to prevent 9/11... maybe they didn't (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
71. This is just so wrong.
The combination of the telecoms letting Bush illegally spy on us BEFORE September 11, and the politicized Bush Justice Department punishing the company that refused - refused because it was illegal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nradisic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
78. You're right on...
Bush and gang are total scum.....from day one they had ulterior motives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AikidoSoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
79. Am going to sign up with Qwest
it's the least I can do
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #79
88. I wish we had it here in Nashville. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
82. K&R...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

"The fact that these materials suggest that cooperation with the program was tied to the award of certain government contracts also contradicts their (phone companies') claims that they were simply acting in good faith to help fight the terrorists when it appears that they may have been motivated by financial concerns instead," Bankston said. ....


The illegality of the pre-911 spying is not based on MIHOP or even LIHOP conspiracy theories about 9-11. The telecoms simply wanted in on the action after 9-11. The fascist-RICO players who have been corrupting the government are corrupting everyone else, including Congress and ATT, by allowing them to profit along with the Administration in this new Terror Economy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ezdidit Donating Member (55 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
91. ...exactly the story that everyone is missing...
Bu$hCo demanded NSA driftnet spying BEFORE 9/11!!!

And immunity from prosecution for telco's confers immunity from prosecution by extension to Bu$hCo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #91
131. The Way I Read It,
the immunity provisions would specifically NOT cover requests made before Sep 11. Is there another way to read it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #91
142. ....and any Democrats who they posted on this ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kmac3 Donating Member (251 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
96. That's what the majority fail to remember . . .
Has nothing to do with war or terrorists. Bush initiated wiretapping as soon as the court gave him the presidency . . . in 2001! The telecoms knew it was illegal but anything for MONEY. I definitely think the purpose was for political spying. I also think that many pushing for the immunity factor feel they would end up involved if it ended up in court. I know for sure one House member knew it was going on, knew it was illegal and did nothing about it. Unfortunately too many of our elected persons are more concerned with their personal gains and in this case their "skin" than the end result to our Constitution if the bill passes. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Indydem Donating Member (866 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 06:48 PM
Response to Original message
97. Check this link....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

Doesn't disprove his allegations, but I think it shows someone is sweeping it under the rug one way or another...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 06:53 PM
Response to Original message
98. Yes...when it comes down to it..."It's the WHOLE POINT" no matter how many DU Apologists
keep trying to "obscure that point." It "IS WHAT IT IS." We need to deal with it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #98
110. Its tracks lead to interesting places and connect many dots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #110
143. Thank you ... interesting link --- I think we have to say "alleged" hijackers . . .
none of it holds up ---

and neither did the first "bombing" of the WTC when Clinton was in office, followed immediately

by correspondence from the PNAC'ers pushing him to attack IRAQ!!!???

Same thing, too, with the FBI getting the run around on people they were trying to investigate

and drag in ---

This is all farce/myth ---



...but these particular events by the Bush administration and telecons seemed to be having

some real impact on people who knew they were being spied on and watched. So ... if that's

correct, we not only have the spying incidents, but then there is follow-thru ....




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bonito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 07:27 PM
Response to Original message
101. K&R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-06-08 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
105. kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 03:14 AM
Response to Original message
116. Yes, it did. Of course it did. And there is only one way to fight it.
To elect a majority of Democrats in Congress with a "filibuster-proof" majority; AND to elect a Democratic President who rejects the dictator powers of the "Unitary Executive" theories of GWB.

This is simply common sense.

Oh, yeah, there is one other possibility: if the majority of Americans take to the streets armed with their "militia guns" and perform a military coup. And yeah, those military coups work so well. :sarcasm:

Bottom line: like him, love him, or hate him; Obama is the best chance we have to regain our Country.

Let me say that again so that it sinks in: like him, love him, or hate him; Obama is the best chance we have to regain our Country.

For those "oh, you're trying to squash dissent" self-proclaimed victims, I am about fed-up with you. GROW THE FUCK UP. Either you are willing to work to actually make a change, or you will continue to play the victim and drag the rest of us down with you. So, let me repeat GROW THE FUCK UP!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 08:50 AM
Response to Original message
121. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
125. They wiretapped Spitzer and used the data to secure a "legitimate" warrantless banking wiretap after
That is how policing works when you have an agency doing warrantless wiretapping. It allows them to monitor and blackmail politicians.

Nobody said anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #125
146. And why wouldn't this also be about taking info out of the records . . . ?
Disappearing stuff they don't want to be seen --- ?

Destroying files -- ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #125
153. Do you have a link to that?
I hadn't heard that. I wouldn't put it past them, but if there is evidence that was the case the subsequent warrant should have been quashed and the charges dismissed as they were fruits of the poisonous tree (warrantless search).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DailyGrind51 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
129. It wasn't very effective at stopping "9/11" now was it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LaStrega Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-07-08 10:35 PM
Response to Original message
151. Thom Hartmann was talking of this today.
Edited on Mon Jul-07-08 10:36 PM by LaStrega
Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

argh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-08 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #151
158. Right . . . and yesterday, too ---
Do you have an opinion on it . . .

I believe anything of these people ---

but can't understand how so many Dems could get pushed around ---

they have some power --- they're a large group ---

what do you think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-08 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
154. look at this oldie but goodie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 20th 2019, 01:14 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC