Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
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.
|
So you're saying they're not guilty because
if they were prosecuted they
might turn on Bush to get immunity? I don't think there is any way to respond to something like that other than to say I expect a lot more from someone so seemingly certain.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
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.
|
The evidence was him admitting he bypassed FISA. As soon as he didn't use a warrant to eavesdrop, he was breaching civil rights.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I doubt Bush and Chaney really care what you order on your pizza.
|
They probably care when I instant message my Iranian friend who lives in Lebanon. They definitely care that I was very close to an Iraqi family up until they had to flee to Syria in late 2005, and spoke to them on the phone at least once a month until their power finally went down for good.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I think the investors in Enron should have been "sophisticated investors", not mom and pop investors.
|
What was done was illegal, and took advantage of not just "mom and pop"s buy savy investors, too.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
We will never have the exact same situation in the future. Plus the problem was in the lack of clarity in the existing law.
|
We will, in fact, likely have the same situation again because nothing was done to legislate it in the future.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
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...
|
What we're writing now is public. My conversation with Omeed is private. Unless they have a legal warrant, they have no right to listen to my phone conversations. As for communicating with terrorists, there's no such thing as a "terrorist". There are militant extremists who utilize guerrilla tactics. "Terrorist" doesn't have any real meaning.
If they had the evidence to demonstrate that one or more parties was a "terrorist", they could have EASILY gotten a warrant from FISA, which in it's history has turned down less than 5 requests.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
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?
|
We're not at war, therefore war authority cannot be invoked. War authority only can be claimed between the time congress has declares war and the time the war ends. The war ended in 2003.