Letters to the Editor
-
Yes, court cases do in fact involve lawyers -- amazing but true!
Most of the talking point for telcom amnesty have nothing to do with telcom amnesty at all; they are generic complaints about law enforcement.
People like Shooter think pointing out that court cases involve lawyers is a strong argument, or that court cases take money to both prosecute and defend.
Their arguments amount to that corporate crime should not be prosecuted, period, and that for corporations nothing should be illegal.
That's the inescapable conclusion when your argument is that lawsuits involve lawyers and therefore should not be allowed to move forward.
-
Such a vitriolic (and premature?) celebration...
What will happen next? I am not sure. These seem like likely scenarios to me:
LEGISLATIVE FRONT - It goes to Conference, right? Where either the House version or the Senate version might prevail. If the House version somehow prevails, it will never be signed by the President. Activity might continue through the end of this Congress. And there may yet be a telecom immunity bill passed this year, as happened in the Senate.
LITIGATION FRONT - Many cases are not yet even filed, and are unlikely to go anywhere until appeals, and possible legislative activity, are all done. It is mostly unthinkable that there would be any significant discovery that would take place before the end of this year. That is, if any cases survive dispositive motions.
As for this somehow putting President Bush in a box, I don't think so. The American public has gotten pretty savvy about the business of litigation. If I were Bush I'd go on national tv and say, "The Democrats are wrecking a good national security program. They have said that we can go ahead and run the program, but that we might get sued for it. The Democrats are effectively defeating the program through the threat of litigation. When they tell you it's not about the money, you know it's all about the money. And when some advocacy groups tell you that it's not about the money and all they want are attorney fees, and maybe some money to their "non-profit", just follow the money. Many of these groups live off their attorney fee awards."
-
Hold Line Two!
"The government shows up at your office just days after the 9/11 attack and asks for your help in the war on terror."--Michael Goldfarb...The Weekly Standard
Isn't it also common knowledge that the NSA spying program began months before 9/11?
Beginning in February 2001, almost seven months before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the government's top electronic eavesdropping organization, the National Security Agency, asked a major U.S. telecommunications carrier for information about its customers and the flow of electronic traffic across its network, according to sources familiar with the request. The carrier, Qwest Communications, refused, believing that the request was illegal unless accompanied by a court order.
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/071102nj1.htm
-
May We Borrow Your "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" Banner
Such a vitriolic (and premature?) celebration...
Elephantman
You will never be needing it.
-
@ Glenn
[Glenn, re "pow wow"'s excellent post]: I just haven't been convinced that this is as clear as others have suggested it is, but I will pay closer attention to this issue this weekend. Whatever the case, though, the argument has continuously been made that they need clearance for foreign-to-foreign "calls," but I agree that I think Americans would actually be more alarmed at the prospect of government employees reading through their emails.
Yes, that 'argument' has been made about the foreign to foreign calls. Because that's something easy to say, "we need this and should have this, and how's that bother you?" But that doesn't mean that is what the FISA court balked at ... I think that the e-mails may well have been a precipitating factor.
The issue with e-mails is that, while in transit, there is no way to determine the physical locus of the recipient when they collect them. Unlike "real-time" communications, where you can use whatever technology to determine as best you can the locus of all parties (and at least attempt to find out if any of them are in the U.S. at the time of intercept), with e-mails, the "intended recipients" might actually get the communications in the future, from any location with Internet access, or may not even get them at all.
If you think about it, perhaps e-mails ought best be thought of as "broadcast" messages, similar to the "radio communication" of 50 USC § 1801(f)(3), and subject to the provisions of this section if all the "intended recipients" (and the "sender") are located in the U.S.....
They are similar to such "broadcasts" in being unidirectional, and with the "intended recipients" not necessarily listening (at any time, or at all).
IF we took that tack, then delivery of one such message overseas (on such delivery) would allow for the collection of such messages.
I'm not sure this is the "best" policy WRT e-mails, but it may be the one most faithful to the compromises put down in the original 1978 FISA law....
Cheers,
-
@ Elephantman
Keep the codpiece. Yuo'll always need that.
-
Elephantman
If I were Bush I'd go on national tv and say,...
-- Elephantman
Classic example of the blind leading the blind. I think George Bush looks and sounds stupid enough when he goes on national TV without your help.
-
Oh Kitt!
That was priceless! Touche!
-
@Arne
If you think about it, perhaps e-mails ought best be thought of as "broadcast" messages, similar to the "radio communication" of 50 USC § 1801(f)(3), and subject to the provisions of this section if all the "intended recipients" (and the "sender") are located in the U.S.....
They are similar to such "broadcasts" in being unidirectional, and with the "intended recipients" not necessarily listening (at any time, or at all).
IF we took that tack, then delivery of one such message overseas (on such delivery) would allow for the collection of such messages.
I'm not sure this is the "best" policy WRT e-mails, but it may be the one most faithful to the compromises put down in the original 1978 FISA law....
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Why isn't the location of server they reside on at the receiving end the key? Like with websites that can be viewed (received) from anywhere in the world.