Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
Thank you for clarifying.
I'm sorry, but that's not how criminal prosecution works. I'm sure you've heard of "aiding and abiding" charges, which specifically deal with those not who were directly responsible, but rather those who were complacent or assisted in the crime. Bypassing FISA woudl be Bush's crime, and the telecoms broke the law in that it is illegal under all jurisdictions for a private citizen or company to record calls in which one is not a party.
This is much the same as above, with one addition. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Just as one cannot say "I didn't know it was illegal to steal from a 7-11" a national phone corporation with an army of lawyers cannot say "well the president said it'd be okay".
|
People get immunity all the time for cooperating in criminal investigations. I say if we have a problem with the law being broken go after the person most responsible. And like I said I think the telecoms acted in good faith, I think they thought they were doing the "patriotic" thing at the time. I think they were told by the administration they they were acting within their interpretation of the law.
Quote:
|
So then you can prove conclusively that all phone records that were gathered as a part of this were "terrorist phone records"? Of course not. Besides, FISA is there to approve these kinds of domestic surveillance methods based on merit. Bypassing FISA was done because there was not enough merit to approve these wiretaps.
|
At some point if Bush abused the civil rights of citizens, why haven't we seen the evidence of this. Lawsuits for the point of "fishing" for something is a waste.
Quote:
|
If they listened to amy of my phone conversations or read any of my emails, I was damaged. And you had better believe I'm on several government lists because of my outspoken beliefs. Anyone who had their emails read, phones taped, etc. were damaged.
|
I doubt Bush and Chaney really care what you order on your pizza.
Quote:
|
So is the litigation against Enron. Should those victims just quit?
|
I think the investors in Enron should have been "sophisticated investors", not mom and pop investors. To the degree that Enron execs were in violation of the law, they should be held accountable. I think they were. Nobody is going to be made whole from losses.
Quote:
|
This is incorrect. Any victory would provide legal precedent to keep future telecoms from circumventing the law and invading the privacy of their customers.
|
We will never have the exact same situation in the future. Plus the problem was in the lack of clarity in the existing law.
Quote:
|
Consumers? You mean tax payers?
|
Possibly both, but I meant consumers.
Quote:
|
This would be the free market punishing those who didn't act in the best interest of their customers. I'd think you would support that.
|
My interest is in finding and defeating terrorists. If I was communicating with terrorists, I would expect to be monitored. I expect what I write here is monitored. I expect that if I piss the wrong people off...
Quote:
You should actually go back and read FISA, just as I have. It's clear as a bell.
This isn't a reason.
|
The issue is when there is conflict with FISA and other legislation. I think Bush used war authority to defend his actions. Congress authorizing the use of military force, etc, was pretty open ended, don't you agree?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
Do you think "the terrorists" have been busy enough, in one recent year, to justify this level of "monitoring"?
|
Yes.
Keep in mind there is raw data and then there is usable data. I think your point here also supports the notion that we don't have intelligence people sitting around listening to my calls to my wife.