Become a part of the TranceAddict community!Frequently Asked Questions - Please read this if you haven'tSearch the forums
TranceAddict Forums > Other > Political Discussion / Debate > Bush trying to get immunity for telecom companies wiretapping
Pages (2): « 1 [2]   Last Thread   Next Thread
Share
Author
Thread    Post A Reply
Trancer-X
mutatis mutandis



Registered: Jul 2001
Location: Shambhala

Tag(s): Domestic Spying; Domestic Surveillance-Wiretapping; FISA; Immunity

October 13, 2007 at 23:37:58

Why Do You Need Immunity If You Haven't Broken the Law?

by Cenk Uygur Page 1 of 1 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com



The Bush administration is desperately trying to get immunity for the telecom companies inserted into the next wiretapping bill. But let me ask a simple question - why would the telecom companies need immunity if they didn't break the law?

I'm not trying to be clever here. I'm asking a literal question. Isn't this an obvious admission that the administration did ask the large telecommunication companies to break the law for them? And if they did, why on God's green earth should we give them immunity without investigating what they did? In fact, shouldn't somebody be looking into doing the opposite - enforcing the law?

Has enforcing US law become so quaint and obsolete that when someone pretty much admits they broke the law and asks in essence for a preemptive pardon, no one looks into it? Do we have a Justice Department anymore? Isn't it comical that these guys ran on the "rule of law" and restoring dignity back into the White House?

Here's another ironic twist. We are all supposed to go along with warrantless wiretapping because "you don't have anything to worry about if you haven't done anything wrong." If I had a nickel for every time a conservative said that to me, I'd have at least $37.50. So, let me throw it back at them: If the telecom companies didn't do anything wrong, they don't have anything to worry about. Right? So, why would they need immunity from US law?

And, of course, in yet another ironic twist, it turns out the only person prosecuted so far is the one man who did not go along with the illegal wiretapping program, Joe Nacchio, the CEO of Qwest. He thought the program was inappropriate and illegal.

So, what did he get for trying to protect his customers? The government took away hundreds of million of dollars in federal contracts and then prosecuted him for relying on those contracts they had promised. This is a sick world where justice is turned on its head. Is anyone going to do anything about this?

So, now we come to the familiar territory where we discuss what the Democrats might do. I'll skip the usual rant on how little they have done so far to stand up for law and order and get to what's next.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) have both said they won't even consider giving immunity unless they see what it is they would be giving immunity for. This seems like the bare, bare minimum, but it's a very good first step. Credit where credit is due. They're doing the right thing here. Who in their right mind would give blanket immunity when they have no idea what they are giving immunity for or what purpose it would serve?

Second, how about we don't give immunity for breaking the law? How about we prosecute it instead?

There were top level people inside the Justice Department and the CIA who quit over how illegal the warrantless wiretapping, the torture memos and the detainee detention programs were and are. They are all described as hardliners or conservative stalwarts. How about we ask these people why they think these programs are so illegal? How about we listen to them and change the programs back so that they are legal again instead of encouraging further law breaking? I know, very radical.

President Bush has threatened to veto any bill that doesn't have an immunity clause. I'm sorry I couldn't hear you, Mr. 29%. Why would anyone listen to the most unpopular president of all time?

If he vetoes the bill, we go back to the old FISA law and he is responsible for not fixing the foreign-to-foreign loophole which the Democrats are more than happy to fix. I'm going to ask the Democrats for once to put the blame where it belongs - on the president - rather than take it on themselves for no reason.

Send him a bill that fixes the real problem and if he vetoes it, then say he is endangering national security, which he would be. And God forbid, if anything were to happen between the time he vetoed the bill and the time he accepts the new law, it's on his head. Is he willing to take that kind of gamble with the American people's security?


Watch Young Turks Videos Here


Cenk Uygur is co-host of The Young Turks, the new morning show for Air America Radio, 6-9AM ET. The Young Turks was the first liberal radio show to air nationwide. The program was also the first original talk show for Sirius Satellite Radio. With the move to Air America, the program can now be heard on XM Satellite Radio, as well as, your local The Young Turks is also the first live, internet TV show. The show can be seen 24 hours a day on www.theyoungturks.com.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/op...u_need_immu.htm

Old Post Oct-14-2007 19:40  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for Trancer-X Click here to Send Trancer-X a Private Message Visit Trancer-X's homepage! Add Trancer-X to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
LatinLover
Bad Boy 4 Life



Registered: Oct 2006
Location: Medellin, Colombia/ Miami, FL

Has there been a case of a US citizen claiming that the US govt has violated their civil liberties. I mean heck, I dont think this program has violated my civil liberties


___________________
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton

College tuition should be free, so should healthcare.

Old Post Oct-15-2007 02:31  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for LatinLover Click here to Send LatinLover a Private Message Add LatinLover to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Krypton
83.798 g/6.022x10^23



Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Texas

quote:
Originally posted by LatinLover
Has there been a case of a US citizen claiming that the US govt has violated their civil liberties. I mean heck, I dont think this program has violated my civil liberties


Smoke a joint in front of a police station, and expect to get arrested...

Now under the constitution, we supposed have the right to life, liberty, and property.

Under our liberty right, why shouldn't one have the right to smoke a joint in public? Who is the victim? Whose rights are being violated? No one! So why does the government take it upon themselves to arrest NON-CRIMINALS!? The government has been quietly violating civil liberties for years.

Regarding the "anti-terrorism" violations of liberty, who gives a flying fuck whether they've actually NOT monitored innocent people (I suspect they already have)? The fact is, the illegal laws are on the books. They have a pretext to really arrest innocent people in the future. Why do you bow down to everything the government does like Jesus just came back??


___________________

Old Post Oct-15-2007 02:47  Korea-Democratic Peoples Republic
Click Here to See the Profile for Krypton Click here to Send Krypton a Private Message Visit Krypton's homepage! Add Krypton to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
MisterOpus1
Grumpy Old Fart



Registered: Dec 2001
Location: Kansas City

quote:
Originally posted by LatinLover
Has there been a case of a US citizen claiming that the US govt has violated their civil liberties.


Umm, yes.


quote:
I mean heck, I dont think this program has violated my civil liberties


You wouldn't know it if it did - therein lies the problem. The ones that have found out, however, have sued and have won. As for the rest, the government refuses to show anything, so we simply don't know.

An illegal act is still illegal, however. Just because we don't know specifically whether or not our government is wiretapping us specifically doesn't make it any less illegal.


___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Old Post Oct-15-2007 03:50  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for MisterOpus1 Click here to Send MisterOpus1 a Private Message Add MisterOpus1 to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Trancer-X
mutatis mutandis



Registered: Jul 2001
Location: Shambhala

quote:
Originally posted by LatinLover
Has there been a case of a US citizen claiming that the US govt has violated their civil liberties. I mean heck, I dont think this program has violated my civil liberties


Brandon Mayfield is one name that comes to mind

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050926/sarasohn

Old Post Oct-15-2007 07:10  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for Trancer-X Click here to Send Trancer-X a Private Message Visit Trancer-X's homepage! Add Trancer-X to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Krypton
83.798 g/6.022x10^23



Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Texas

Such a breach in check and balances... I wish today we had the political will we had when ex-President Clinton was impeached to impeach the losers in the white house...

For entire story, go to http://www.alternet.org/workplace/65248/
-----------------------------------------------------
Bush and the Phone Companies: Partners in Crime

By Timothy Karr, HuffingtonPost.com. Posted October 15, 2007.

Phone companies have opened a new front in their campaign against the free flow of information. This time they've found a powerful ally in the White House.

AT&T and Verizon have already shown their disdain for free speech and Net Neutrality, and their eagerness to let government spies lurk on our phone calls. Now, their lobbyists have teamed with President George Bush to strong arm Congress into granting full immunity for a disturbing array of illegal and unconstitutional acts.

A handful of legislators, though, are holding out against the pressure, which is no small feat given the extreme powers behind the amnesty grab.
------------------------------------------------------------
Money, Politics and the Law

Both Verizon and AT&T spend hundreds of millions of dollars on campaign contributions, congressional junkets, Washington lawyers, lobbyists and PR campaigns.

Much of this political clout is now being focused on one issue: elevating phone companies above the law so they can invade our homes via phone lines, the Internet and other modern communications -- acting as the ultimate gatekeepers against the free flow of information.

Earlier this year they were caught handing over customer phone records to the National Security Agency (NSA). The phone companies first denied it and then started a quiet campaign with the White House to gain immunity from any lawsuits.

The campaign got a lot louder on Wednesday, when President Bush told reporters that he would veto a new FISA eavesdropping bill that doesn't grant retroactive immunity to the phone companies.

Thus far, about 40 active lawsuits name several telecommunications companies for alleged violations of wiretapping laws. Other suits are in the works, pending this legislation.


___________________

Old Post Oct-16-2007 18:50  Korea-Democratic Peoples Republic
Click Here to See the Profile for Krypton Click here to Send Krypton a Private Message Visit Krypton's homepage! Add Krypton to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Trancer-X
mutatis mutandis



Registered: Jul 2001
Location: Shambhala

NSA Domestic Surveillance Began 7 Months Before 9/11, Convicted Qwest CEO Claims
By Ryan Singel October 11, 2007 | 6:20:59 PM

Follow qwest down the rabbit hole. Did the NSA's massive call records database program pre-date the terrorist attacks of 9/11?



That startling allegation is in court documents released this week which show that former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio -- the head of the only company known to have turned down the NSA's requests for Americans' phone records -- tried, unsuccessfully, to argue just that in his defense against insider trading charges.

Nacchio was sentenced to 6 years in prison in 2007 after being found guilty of illegally selling shares based on insider information that the company's fortunes were declining. Nacchio unsuccessfully attempted to defend himself by arguing that he actually expected Qwest's 2001 earnings to be higher because of secret NSA contracts, which, he contends, were denied by the NSA after he declined in a February 27, 2001 meeting to give the NSA customer calling records, court documents released this week show.

AT&T, Verizon and Bellsouth all agreed to turn over call records to an NSA database, according to reporting in the USA Today in 2006. At that time, Nacchio's lawyer publicly stated that Nacchio declined to participate until served with a proper legal order.

The government has never confirmed or denied the existence of the program, but is trying to win legal immunity for telecoms being sued for their alleged participation in the call records program and the government's warrantless wiretapping of Americans. Turning over customer records to anyone, including the government, without proper legal orders violates federal privacy laws.

Nacchio's attempt to depose witnesses and present the classified defense was declined by Colorado federal district court judge Edward Nottingham, a decision that is playing a role in Nacchio's pending appeal to the 10th Circuit Appeals court.

The allegation is peppered throughout the highly redacted documents released by the lower court today, but are most clear in the introduction to this filing (.pdf) from April 2007.

    Defendant Joseph P. Nacchio ... respectfully renews his objection to the Court's rulings excluding testimony surrounding his February 27, 2001 meeting at Ft. Meade with representatives from the National Security Agency (NSA) as violative of his constitutional right to mount a defense. Although Mr. Nacchio is allowed to tell the jury that he and James Payne went into that meeting expecting to talk about the "Groundbreaker" project and came out of the meeting with optimism about the prospect for 2001 revenue from NSA, the Court has prohibited Mr. Nacchio from eliciting testimony regarding what also occurred at that meeting. [REDACTED] The Court has also refused to allow Mr. Nacchio to demonstrate that the agency retaliated for this refusal by denying the Groundbreaker and perhaps other work to Qwest.

    By being prevented from telling his full story to the jury or from fully and properly cross-examining any rebuttal witnesses, Mr. Nacchio has been deprived of the ability to explaoin why - after he came out of the February meeting with a reasonable, good faith, expectation that Qwest would be receiving significant contracts from NSA in 2001 ... Qwest was denied significant work.

    [ed note. James Payne, Qwest's government liason who was also at February 27, 2001 meeting, later spoke with government agents in 2006].

    In the interview, Mr. Payne confirmed that, at the February 27, 2001 meeting, "[t]here was some discussion about [redacted]. Mr. Payne also stated: Subsequent to the meeting the customer came back and expressed disappointment at Qwest's decision. Payne realized at this time that "no" was not going to be enough for them. Payne said they never actually said no and it went on for years. In meetings after meetings, they would bring it up. At one point, he suggested they just them, "no." Nacchio said it was a legal issue and that they could not do something their general counsel told them not to do. ... Nacchio projected that he might do it if they could find a way to do it legally.

    There was a feeling also, that the NSA acted as agents for other government agencies and if Qwest frustrated the NSA, they would also frustrate other agencies.

The Groundbreaker contract, reportedly worth $2 - $5 billion dollars, outsources the NSA's IT management, but at least one lawsuit charges the project was cover for a domestic spying program.

Notably, after the USA Today story ran , Nacchio's lawyer Herbert Stern, who argued his case before trial, released this statement:
    In light of pending litigation, I have been reluctant to issue any public statements. However, because of apparent confusion concerning Joe Nacchio and his role in refusing to make private telephone records of Qwest customers available to the NSA immediately following the Patriot Act, and in order to negate misguided attempts to relate Mr. Nacchio's conduct to present litigation, the following are the facts.

    In the Fall of 2001, at a time when there was no investigation of Qwest or Mr. Nacchio by the Department of Justice or the Securities and Exchange Commission, and while Mr. Nacchio was Chairman and CEO of Qwest and was serving pursuant to the President's appointment as the Chairman of the National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee, Qwest was approached to permit the Government access to the private telephone records of Qwest customers.

    Mr. Nacchio made inquiry as to whether a warrant or other legal process had been secured in support of that request. When he learned that no such authority had been granted and that there was a disinclination on the part of the authorities to use any legal process, including the Special Court which had been established to handle such matters, Mr. Nacchio concluded that these requests violated the privacy requirements of the Telecommunications Act.

    Accordingly, Mr. Nacchio issued instructions to refuse to comply with these requests. These requests continued throughout Mr. Nacchio's tenure and until his departure in June of 2002.
Note that Stern says a request was made in the Fall of 2001. Stern does not say "first approached" in the statement, though that clearly seems to be the implication. But it's not what the four corners of Stern's statement says. And finally, the redactions in the documents make it impossible to say what the February 21, 2001 requests from the NSA were. It could have been a request from NSA to do some other eavesdropping thing that Nacchio felt uncomfortable with, but I'm very doubtful.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/20...sked-for-p.html

Old Post Oct-16-2007 23:52  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for Trancer-X Click here to Send Trancer-X a Private Message Visit Trancer-X's homepage! Add Trancer-X to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message

TranceAddict Forums > Other > Political Discussion / Debate > Bush trying to get immunity for telecom companies wiretapping
Post New Thread    Post A Reply

Pages (2): « 1 [2]  
Last Thread   Next Thread
Click here to listen to the sample!Pause playbackEars Needed for Unknown Track. I created a soundclip to assist... [2005] [7]

Click here to listen to the sample!Pause playbackJoshua Ryan - Pistolwhip [2002]

Show Printable Version | Subscribe to this Thread
Forum Jump:

All times are GMT. The time now is 22:57.

Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
 
Search this Thread:

 
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict

Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
Support TA!