Letters to the Editor
karrsic
Published Letters: 466 Editor's Choice: 6
-
re:mild dissent
[Read the article: Today's FISA vote]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]LOL. Reid just stood their and about begged for really, super-duper short debates on the amendments so they could be voted down and Senate could move on to the passing the bill.
-
Owning the Argument
[Read the article: Today's FISA vote]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]repeat it to anyone who'll listen and even to those who won't; add it to your email signature line; put it in every email to senators, media, friends and family. "It" is:
Why does Bush want to protect telcos more than citizens?
p.s. thanks to whoever made some much needed edits to the FISA Wiki today...
-
sysprog
[Read the article: "Trust Us" Government]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn may have quoted this passage by Judge Walker in one of his posts, but it bears repeating. When denying to dismiss the EFF litigation against AT&T based on the state secrets privilege, he wrote:
It is important to note that even the state secrets privilege has its limits. While the court recognizes and respects the executive’s constitutional duty to protect the nation from threats, the court also takes seriously its constitutional duty to adjudicate the disputes that come before it. See Hamdi v Rumsfeld, 542 US 507, 536 (2004) (plurality opinion) (“Whatever power the United States Constitution envisions for the Executive in its exchanges with other nations or with enemy organizations in times of conflict, it most assuredly envisions a role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake.”).
To defer to a blanket assertion of secrecy here would be to abdicate that duty, particularly because the very subject matter of this litigation has been so publicly aired. The compromise between liberty and security remains a difficult one. But dismissing this case at the outset would sacrifice liberty for no apparent enhancement of security."
-
Pow wow, Arne
[Read the article: Today's FISA vote]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Does it make sense to say you need a warrant to spy on one person, but no warrant to spy on everyone?" - Arne L.
In Hepting v AT&T (the pending FISA litigation), Judge Walker denies the motion to dismiss based on AT&T arguments that the plaintiff's lack standing. AT&T argued that “[p]laintiffs lack standing to assert their statutory claims (Counts II-VII) because the FAC alleges no facts suggesting that their statutory rights have been violated” and “the FAC alleges nothing to suggest that the named plaintiffs were themselves subject to surveillance.”
Judge Walker writes "But AT&T ignores that the gravamen of
plaintiffs’ complaint is that AT&T has created a dragnet that
collects the content and records of its customers’ communications. The court cannot see how any one plaintiff will have failed to demonstrate injury-in-fact if that plaintiff effectively demonstrates that all class members have so suffered."
-
Stage VI
[Read the article: What "bipartisanship" in Washington means]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We start all over again thanks to some well-meaning monks and a hymn.
http://tinyurl.com/2ohkyp
Fiat Homo, Fiat Lux, Fiat Voluntas Tua
-
Jim
[Read the article: What "bipartisanship" in Washington means]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That's funny. I get my daily dose from the Google module "Chimp-o-Matic." Today's quote:
As you know, we don't have relationships with Iran. I mean, that's -- ever since the late '70s, we have no contacts with them, and we've totally sanctioned them. In other words, there's no sanctions -- you can't -- we're out of sanctions.
--George W. Bush
Annandale, VA
08/09/2004
funny. sad, but funny.
-
Gordon, re: Standing
[Read the article: The Senate's FISA agreement]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In Hepting v AT&T (the pending FISA litigation), Judge Walker denies the motion to dismiss based on AT&T arguments that the plaintiff's lack standing. AT&T argued that “[p]laintiffs lack standing to assert their statutory claims (Counts II-VII) because the FAC alleges no facts suggesting that their statutory rights have been violated” and “the FAC alleges nothing to suggest that the named plaintiffs were themselves subject to surveillance.”
Judge Walker writes:
"But AT&T ignores that the gravamen of plaintiffs’ complaint is that AT&T has created a dragnet that collects the content and records of its customers’ communications. The court cannot see how any one plaintiff will have failed to demonstrate injury-in-fact if that plaintiff effectively demonstrates that all class members have so suffered."
emphasis mine. Court document can be downloaded at the EFF; or this is a link directly to the pdf: http://tinyurl.com/25rwoh
It's an amazing read.
More here: http://fisa.wikispot.org/Telecom_Immunity_Arguments
-
tballou, re: telecom money
[Read the article: The Senate's FISA agreement]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The best indication of the type of money we're talking about comes from the former CEO of Qwest, Jim Nacchio. Nacchio refused to go along with the NSA because he deemed their requests illegal. He is now being sued for insider trading and his defense is that he thought he was going to win these lucrative govt. contracts that he was shut out of once he wouldn't cooperate with assisting the illegal wiretapping.
In a highly redacted document he says that in 1998 or 1999, government contracts generated revenues "in the range of $150-200 million." In early 2001, the NSA sought a new contract: "This new NSA contract was called "Groundbreaker," and Qwest's portion consisted of a $50-100 million opportunity, planned for implementation in 2001..."
It's amusing that some of the redacted players are clearly well-known 3 letter acronyms.
PDF document here: http://tinyurl.com/34hrvp
More here:
http://fisa.wikispot.org/Telecom_Immunity_Arguments
-
Jim White, re: prior surveillance
[Read the article: The Senate's FISA agreement]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I asked the same question earlier this week. One of the stories that mentions the earlier time line is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/washington/16nsa.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp
-
@WT
[Read the article: The Senate's FISA agreement]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Are you referring to my post regarding Judge Walker's ruling? I urge you to download it and give it a read. With the customary caveat in place, IANAL, I understood Walker to rule that an individual doesn't need to show that he specifically was under surveillance if he can show everyone was under surveillance.
You have me a bit stumped here: "You can't prove that the government did this to you if they won't admit that they did it" If you have Telecom findings that provide evidence, you don't need the govt to admit anything, right?