Ooops, I agreed with Democrats...

[cryowizard]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071009/pl_nm/usa_security_democrats_dc_1

I agree with Dems on this one -- there should be more oversight over our internal spying activities and there should be warrants issued. Judicial and legislative oversight would be a balance to the executive's desire to operate without any scrutiny. I hope however that cases like this would not happen when intelligence activities are reviewed by judges and lawmakers. In fact, there should be a provision covering press leaks in the new bill, with severe penalties for blabbing.

One caveat here is that I wonder why Dems have an issue giving blanket retroactive immunity to companies who provided data to the US spy agencies under the statute's current provisions. How could they not have? It's the law, or are we supposed to only follow laws selectively?

Comments

Answer to your "why" question:

[mhmeln-57.livejournal.com]

Democrats in the House of Representatives said they would not consider immunity until they get information specifying what the firms did.

That wasn't the LAW. That was usurpation of the law, and some firms chose to stand up and fight, and some firms chose to roll over and provide the information. i'd be curious to know what "motivated" them. Wouldn't you?

My favorite quote, though is "Rather than responding to the urgent needs of our intelligence community, Democrats are giving unprecedented constitutional protections to terrorists, spies and other enemies overseas." Man, every day i am wasting time on work, food, walking the dog, watching TV, having sex, while i could be responding to the urgent needs of our intelligence community. My life is such a waste. :-)

Re: Answer to your "why" question:

[cryowizard.livejournal.com]

Some lawyer you are.

A legislative act of Congress signed by the President isn't the law? Yes it is.

Unjust? Unfair? Wrong? Maybe. But a law nonetheless, and you know it. Just because it was your favorite President who signed that stuff into law doesn't make it any less legal.

Now, is a corporation supposed to fight a law? No, it isn't. Some chose to do it, some didn't. Both had their own reasons. They are not there to fight for rights, they are there to make money. If the law is unfair and they take it to the Supreme Court -- good for them. But to prosecute them for following a law just because some people don't find it fair or proper is not right and smells like a witch hunt to me.

And as to the intelligence community -- you'll sing a different song if there is a bomb on a subway tomorrow. And I'd tell you how our intelligence failures brought about 9/11, but that would be lost on you, wouldn't it :)

Re: Answer to your "why" question:

[mhmeln-57.livejournal.com]

i wasn't aware that there was a law authorizing the companies to disclose information to the government. i thought it was done via governmental requests / subpoenas. Am i missing something? What was the original statute?

Re: Answer to your "why" question:

[cryowizard.livejournal.com]

I was talking about this part:

>> retroactive immunity from lawsuits for U.S. telecommunication companies that cooperated in the warrantless surveillance program [that] begun after the September 11 attacks.

The warrantless surveillance program is done under PATRIOT Act, signed into law on October 26, 2001. If I understand the problem correctly, some companies complied with requests for information issued under the Act, and some didn't. Lots of these telecoms are now being sued for violating subscribers rights.

Re: Answer to your "why" question:

[mhmeln-57.livejournal.com]

i don't have the same interpretation of the problem as you do - i don't think the law provided blanket authorization for companies to provide information per requests - the law may have authorized the government to perform warrantless surveillance, but did not extend to requiring private companies to cooperate with the government. i could be mistaken - i am not up to speed on my PATRIOTism. :-)