Letters to the Editor
-
So, push comes to shove.
It will be interesting to see, if we are ever able to see, if the government was keeping the telecoms in line by giving or withholding government contracts as has been alleged.
-
Brilliant, illuminating interview
I wonder how the EFF can argue that a retroactive amnesty doesn't apply to their case?
-
The Little Vagabond
I wonder how the EFF can argue that a retroactive amnesty doesn't apply to their case?
In addition to the statutory claims, they have some claims for constitutional violations against AT&T (on the theory that AT&T is acting as a quasi-governmental actor) and they'd argue Congress can't immunize them from those claims.
But for a lot of reasons, those claims aren't nearly as strong (and they know that), and to be honest, I don't think they would have a strong argument to continue in the face of amnesty (though I haven't looked carefully at that). EFF obviously believes that amnesty would be a huge hurdle - they just have to say that they could continue anyway so that, if amnesty happens, they have preserved that argument for court and haven't "admitted" that it kills their suit.
-
If information wants to be free.....
Perhaps we should be thanking ATT for "liberating" all that customer data.
But seriously, we should all be grateful to the EFF who have been fighting for digital free speech for way longer than any particular Bushco travesty. (And yes - they went after Clinton and Clipper so the trolls can put a sock in it before they even start.)
-
So if amnesty passes ...
Can I say we live in a fascist police state yet?
Saying we live in a fascist police state used to be alarmist. But special laws that makes certain corporate citizens above the law, and then merge those corporations with the long arm of the government strikes me as quite fascist. Combined with spying powers that will explicitly have zero oversight? That sounds like a police state to me. You can't challenge the corporations in criminal court, cause national security. You can't challenge them in civil court, cause they lobbied to be made liability free. So, when is it that American satisfies Mussolini's famous line, fascism is better called corporatism?
-
Don't say "retroactive immunity." Say "total impunity."
Because that's really what's at stake here -- whether there is the rule of law in our corporate state.
-
Does EFF
accept donations? I'd like to thank them for what they are doing for me.
-
@ bilzim, Of course they take donations
They are a not-for-profit organization.
-
EFF Donations
Does EFF accept donations? I'd like to thank them for what they are doing for me.
They do. I asked that and will include it in the full interview, but you can go to their site and donate - www.eff.org.
I intend to.
-
Outstanding interview
Maybe I could have stomached practicing law had I joined an organization such as EFF.
I know retroactive amnesty would present a hurdle to this suit, but good grief, there are Fourth Am issues here aside from FISA. It is Con Law 101 that govt cannot get around 4th Am violations by contracting its searches to private actors, and no congressional legislation can immunize from constitutional violations. Tho I'm not sure what damages would then be (but if it becomes a civil rights case, if it can be, EFF could get attorney fees if they prevai). Or whether EFF would then have to add the DoJ as a defendant, perhaps even in substitution for AT&T -- but then this isn't something I've studied with any lawyerly hat on.
But one can be sure EFF has.
-
I hope and pray
every member of Congress-every American for that matter, reads this article today Glenn.
-
FISA
Your interviewee makes an important point, one that cannot be emphasized enough.
FISA was enacted to protect the privacy of citizens from government spying. Not to allow the govenment to spy, but to prevent proven criminal excesses engaged in by an overzealous government.
Using typically deceptive language, the right loudly and consistently refers to FISA as a "tool" to "protect Americans." Nothing could be further from the truth.
It was a legitimate and necessary response by a horrified and embarassed nation to prevent egregious abuses of the peoples' trust.
There is NO reason to avoid the oversight of a secret court except to commit crimes. Period.
The Bush administration's enemies are it's own constituents and political opponents, not terrorists. That is abundantly clear.
If they were not using this power for political ends, it would not only be shockingly out of character, but unnecessary to cover up.
-
Man. . .
How bad does it need to get before people slap congress silly?
How bad does it need to get before they actually do research into and read the bills they vote on. Will they ever?
-
Telcom misconduct
So the telcoms are accused of helping the Bush administration monitor all emails, phone calls, etc. made by American citizens over the past six years. I wonder if the email traffic, phone conversations of certain Americans got special treatment by, say, routing them through Karl Rove's office? For example, what happened to emails and other private or political correspondence of Democrat candidates for public office, or John Kerry? This whole thing could turn out to be a lot like the Watergate break in to DNC headquarters by Nixon's burglar corps.
-
Big IF here
IF the telcos did NOT break the law, why would the need immunity?
I'd like to see a journalist ask someone in the whitehouse one of the following questions:
1. If the telcos require immunity, wouldn't that mean they were indeed breaking the law? You don't seek immunity for innocent activities.
or
2. If the telcos require immunity for doing what the Bush administration told them to, does that mean that the Bush administration is also engaged in illegal activities?
-
@FilthyHarry
With questions like that you definitely couldn't be a member of the WH press corps.
-
Oh, Mona!
"Maybe I could have stomached practicing law had I joined an organization such as EFF."
It's not too late, is it?
-
Interesting about Western Union
For once, it's just as I remember it -- the uproar was over telegram communications originating in or ending in the U.S. -- i.e. communications between a U.S. person and a foreign one. This is just what these jerks have been trying to legalize, "If bin Laden is talking to someone in the U.S. I want to know who..."
Amazing that no one in Congress that was around for the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, a.k.a. The Church Committee seems to remember this and say something. Some time, Glenn, you'll have to do a piece on all the press "pundits" who keep saying things like "worst since Nixon" or "most egregious power grab since Nixon". It should be obvious, just from this one example, let alone the laundry list of other offenses, that this Administration's lawlessness left Nixon in the dust a long, long time ago.
[Warning about joining either the EFF or the ACLU: you are likely to be impressed enough by the worth-it-ness to end up giving them money throughout the year.]