So why won't the Dems pass the bill? Because their single most influential interest group, trial lawyers, can't wait to "cut a fat hog" on the telecoms. It's all about the money.
But they should have nothing to fear if they haven't broken the law, you might protest. The trial lawyers are betting that they can drive the cost of a successful defense so high that the telecoms would be happy to settle for hundreds of millions, even in the absence of any wrongdoing.
Bush is still looking out for you.
When did the ACLU become "a bunch of class-action trial lawyers"? (according to el Shrubbo) You think that the ACLU is in it for the money? Seriously?L K Day wrote:So why won't the Dems pass the bill? Because their single most influential interest group, trial lawyers, can't wait to "cut a fat hog" on the telecoms. It's all about the money.
Bacon is meat candy.
No, I don't support fishing expeditions. I want these suits pursued under the standard rules of evidence. But that works both ways. The plaintiffs have to follow the standard rules, but the government doesn't get to just waive the "national security" flag and get out of whatever, whenever. It's simple, the plaintiffs have standing and are entitled under the law to the production of specific, applicable documents from the defendants. Either those productions support the claim or they do not.I almost fell on the floor laughing...let me get it straight..you get YOUR panties in a bunch when you get stopped at Nada Tunnel , doing nothing wrong, but it is OK to force telecom to turn over records, which may or MAY NOT have evidence? where in the hell do you get your f**** up logic?
please do tell....I bet those secretly recorded messages will have bin laden and shrubbo drinking a beer together, conspiring to wire the twin towers and blame it on saddam....
And to clear up your confusion or ignorance: The Constitution provides individual citizens specific protections against searches by the government without probable cause. The Constitution does not provide special protections for the paperwork of companies when there are civil tort claims against those companies by individuals. The rules for police searches are different than the rules for production of evidence in civil suits. You are now slightly less ignorant.
(Yeah, I know: http://xkcd.com/386/ )
Piggie, I know the 'devil's advocate' game that you like to play here, but hasn't it sunk in to your head yet that America has been turned into a fucking Kafka story? The Attorney General can't make a statement to the effect that something that has been a prosecuted crime for the last century is still a crime because he knows that the act has been committed, and by stating the obvious, he would have to actually prosecute the criminals? WTF? It's pretty clear to everyone that the administration engaged in illegal domestic spying, and you're whining about the fact that the best way to uncover the crimes involves a few subpoenas?
Start reading here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution ... amble.html
That's what hundreds of thousands of American soldiers died to defend. Yeah, it may be "quaint" according to some scum lawyers, but it's still the DNA of the United States of America. It's a defenseless bit of ink on paper - as long as we have people like Alberto Gonzalez, Dick Cheney, John Yoo, Antonin Scalia and Tom DeLay who fail to uphold it, we're fucked. That's always how its been. It's up to the rest of us, whether that's the ACLU or the right-wing Judicial Watch or regular non-stupid citizens like you and me.
Larry appears to have his head so deeply up Bill O'Reily's ass that he can't tell up from down. (actually, that's an interesting topology problem: how do you have your head up your own ass and up someone else's ass simultaneously?) But, Piggie - I know that you aren't that stupid. It's your responsibility as a citizen to push for the right things and resist the wrong. According to the Constitution and the law, it is illegal for the government to spy on citizens within the US without even the rubber stamp of the FISA court's warrant. It is clear that this crime has been committed. Either we can let this serious illegality slide, and with it allow America to be weakened, or we can pursue the illegality and see that it doesn't happen again.
Piggie - do you stand for or against America?
Bacon is meat candy.
Here's a clue for everyone about why this whole FISA situation is not partisan (Democrat vs. Republican), it's a fight over whether or not America will continue to be based on our Constitution or will become something more like contemporary Russia - sure, there's a Constitution and laws, but things are really run by a few individuals who can make arbitrary decisions.
Back at the establishment of the FISA system, right wing columnist (and rabid Hillary-hater) William Safire wrote this:
FISA has a completely secret court, that court has rejected a total of 5 cases out of tens of thousands, allows for warrantless spying in many cases, and allows for retroactive approval of spying after it has started. It's such a sketchy setup that even right-wingers called it out as a bad idea. But somehow, that isn't enough for the current administration - they want more power with less oversight.
Back at the establishment of the FISA system, right wing columnist (and rabid Hillary-hater) William Safire wrote this:
This was back in 1978! FISA was established in the aftermath of the Nixon/Watergate issues, where an 'imperial' (and criminal) president used fear-mongering about foreign threats (with secret domestic agents and turn-coats!!!!), smear campaigns against whistleblowers and abuses of the intelligence system (specifically, illegal telephone wiretapping) to keep his hold on political power. Sound familiar?To prevent Presidents from listening in to political opponents in the guise of protecting national security, the new Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has been Proposed.
Predictably, opponents of warrantless wiretapping cheered: the act seems to require a court warrant before tapping can begin. But nobody is reading the fine print, which adds up to the most sweeping authorization for the increase and abuse of wiretapping in our history.
Conservatives like to assist law enforcement, and to curtail espionage we do not like to make it harder for "our side." But this natural inclination to help the law must be our weighed by a responsibility to protect the law-abiding individual from the power of government to intrude. And this bill would turn every telephone in every home into a suspected household spy.
Huey Long once said that if fascism ever came to America, it would come in Democratic form; in this bill, Big Brother is on the way, and he is cloaked in the mantle of civil liberties.
FISA has a completely secret court, that court has rejected a total of 5 cases out of tens of thousands, allows for warrantless spying in many cases, and allows for retroactive approval of spying after it has started. It's such a sketchy setup that even right-wingers called it out as a bad idea. But somehow, that isn't enough for the current administration - they want more power with less oversight.
Bacon is meat candy.