Immunity Granted

[Ravi]

absolutely agree. i dont understand how warrantless wiretaping is even legal

I don't think it is, but it's why I imagine they want to give the telecoms immunity. Anything else would be an admission of guilt.

 

[AllieBaba]

The warrant can be issued after the fact ...

I, and millions of other Americans do not approve of the telecoms being open books to the gov't because of a "boogeyman" ... and neither should you ...

And what about the people who find out their information was shared with the gov't, but they weren't prosecuted or even considered, and decide to sue because they don't like it?

They must have immunity or it won't work.

 

[Article 15]

I don't think it is, but it's why I imagine they want to give the telecoms immunity. Anything else would be an admission of guilt.

That they have to be granted immunity says it all ...

 

[Annie]

I don't think it is, but it's why I imagine they want to give the telecoms immunity. Anything else would be an admission of guilt.

Even the Clinton administration understood this:

Byron York on Bill Clinton & Warrantless Searches on National Review Online

 

[Article 15]

And what about the people who find out their information was shared with the gov't, but they weren't prosecuted or even considered, and decide to sue because they don't like it?

They must have immunity or it won't work.

It's an invasion of privacy ...

I'm astounded at how much you seem to trust the gov't ...

 

[Ravi]

Even the Clinton administration understood this:

Byron York on Bill Clinton & Warrantless Searches on National Review Online

Understood what? Presidential power grab?

 

[AllieBaba]

That they have to be granted immunity says it all ...

The only difference between this and the use of gov't satellites to obtain information is that the government, instead of using it's own equipment, uses privately owned or commercial equipment. If the gov't had this equipment, it would use it and nobody would know, and it wouldn't be illegal because the gov't doesn't contract with the people, for money, to provide a service to them. But when consumers contract with a company for certain services (phone, internet, etc) they expect (and there's usually laws) that the company will not violate their trust and use the information they can obtain against them for gain.

For our safety during these times we have got to wake up and realize first of all that we are at war, and second of all, that when there are wars there are casualties. We lose people, we lose things, we lose freedoms. That's the way it is. If you prevent one side from fighting, you're handing the other the victory.

 

[Article 15]

The only difference between this and the use of gov't satellites to obtain information is that the government, instead of using it's own equipment, uses privately owned or commercial equipment. If the gov't had this equipment, it would use it and nobody would know, and it wouldn't be illegal because the gov't doesn't contract with the people, for money, to provide a service to them. But when consumers contract with a company for certain services (phone, internet, etc) they expect (and there's usually laws) that the company will not violate their trust and use the information they can obtain against them for gain.

For our safety during these times we have got to wake up and realize first of all that we are at war, and second of all, that when there are wars there are casualties. We lose people, we lose things, we lose freedoms. That's the way it is. If you prevent one side from fighting, you're handing the other the victory.

Lol ... so you are telling that if the gov't had their own gear to have sweeping access to our Internet and phones communications and used it that it would be perfectly legal ... really bro, I'm starting to wonder about you ...

And as for "protecting us" from those that wish to do us harm I direct you to our WIDE OPEN borders and the lack of terrorists attacks or suicide bombers here on US soil since 9/11 to give you an idea of how real the "threat" is CONUS ...

 

[sealybobo]

The only difference between this and the use of gov't satellites to obtain information is that the government, instead of using it's own equipment, uses privately owned or commercial equipment. If the gov't had this equipment, it would use it and nobody would know, and it wouldn't be illegal because the gov't doesn't contract with the people, for money, to provide a service to them. But when consumers contract with a company for certain services (phone, internet, etc) they expect (and there's usually laws) that the company will not violate their trust and use the information they can obtain against them for gain.

For our safety during these times we have got to wake up and realize first of all that we are at war, and second of all, that when there are wars there are casualties. We lose people, we lose things, we lose freedoms. That's the way it is. If you prevent one side from fighting, you're handing the other the victory.

Quest said that in February 2001, BEFORE 9-11, the Bush administration was already asking for wiretapping. They turned Bush down and then they did not get the fat government contracts, and a year or two later the CEO of Quest was found guilty of some bullshit.

The telecoms have paid off both the dems and gop. They've pumped in millions of dollars to get this done.

What leading democrat helped the telecoms? That's right, Rockafeller. Yes, he's a democrat, damn it!!!!

This stinks! This is the kind of thing that makes people say, "the dems are no better than the GOP".

Damn!!!!

This is against the law and against the 4th amendment.

 

[editec]

Again, please note.

The telecoms are being taken to task for what the government ordered them to do.

To the best of my knowledge no government offical is being held accountable for giving them that order.

Why not?

 

[Ravi]

Why couldn't the telecoms say no?

 

[Ravi]

Quest said that in February 2001, BEFORE 9-11, the Bush administration was already asking for wiretapping. They turned Bush down and then they did not get the fat government contracts, and a year or two later the CEO of Quest was found guilty of some bullshit.

The telecoms have paid off both the dems and gop. They've pumped in millions of dollars to get this done.

What leading democrat helped the telecoms? That's right, Rockafeller. Yes, he's a democrat, damn it!!!!

This stinks! This is the kind of thing that makes people say, "the dems are no better than the GOP".

Damn!!!!

This is against the law and against the 4th amendment.

I do remember reading that politicians that got help from telecoms tended to vote for immunity. Is this why Obama voted that way?

 

[Article 15]

Again, please note.

The telecoms are being taken to task for what the government ordered them to do.

To the best of my knowledge no government offical is being held accountable for giving them that order.

Why not?

My guess ...

Because of how high up the order came from ...

 

[AllieBaba]

Why couldn't the telecoms say no?

They will say no if they don't get immunity.

Then our security will be in jeopardy because our enemies will take advantage of it.

 

[sealybobo]

I do remember reading that politicians that got help from telecoms tended to vote for immunity. Is this why Obama voted that way?

That's one possibility, sure. Are you expecting Obama to be a saint? People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

 

[sealybobo]

They will say no if they don't get immunity.

Then our security will be in jeopardy because our enemies will take advantage of it.

Bullshit. The whole problem with, what was it called, the Patriot Act, was that the government needed to get a warrant to spy on foreign to foreign calls that were routed through the US.

Congress could have passed a one paragraph bill to solve that problem.

The phone companies will do what they are told. I don't so much care about the phone companies. It's the politicians that will now get off scott free because of this immunity.

This is the same shit Nixon got impeached over.

I hope you are happy your 4th amendment right was trampled. Stupid unpatriotic Americans who will trade in their freedoms for security.

 

[Ravi]

That's one possibility, sure. Are you expecting Obama to be a saint? People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

I don't live in a glass house and I expect him to keep his word. Is it too late for Hillary to be the nominee? She voted more to my liking.

 

[Article 15]

I hope you are happy your 4th amendment right was trampled. Stupid unpatriotic Americans who will trade in their freedoms for security.

I think you mean "perceived" security

 

[Care4all]

heard constitutional lawyers speak on this last night and if the law was not made retroactive, then president bush committed over 30 FELONIES, and congress is complicit by passing this law in those felonies.... ???

 

[AllieBaba]

Bullshit. The whole problem with, what was it called, the Patriot Act, was that the government needed to get a warrant to spy on foreign to foreign calls that were routed through the US.

Congress could have passed a one paragraph bill to solve that problem.

The phone companies will do what they are told. I don't so much care about the phone companies. It's the politicians that will now get off scott free because of this immunity.

This is the same shit Nixon got impeached over.

I hope you are happy your 4th amendment right was trampled. Stupid unpatriotic Americans who will trade in their freedoms for security.

There is just so much crap in that I durst not touch it.