If you want to see Democrats turn purple

[Classact]

Turn on CSPAN 2 at 10:00AM Eastern this morning and watch the opening comments from the Senate Majority Leader and Senate Minority Leader. Yesterday the Republican Minority leader had Reid so angry he used words that he later had to apologize for and ask removed from the official Senate record.

The Republican leader painted Reid into a corner again on FISA so the only choice will be that that is proposed by the Republicans and the President... And, he did it so skillfully that Reid didn't even realize it until he was in the corner. The choice will be begging for another extension of FISA, approving the Bush agenda or letting FISA expire... either way the Democrats look dumb in public. So if you want to see a Democratic temper tantrum turn on the TV for the first 15 minutes of the opening of the Senate today.

[Abbey Marie]

Sounds like fun. Reid never struck me as very intelligent.

[Classact]

Sounds like fun. Reid never struck me as very intelligent.Yep, should be interesting. Here is some background... http://cboldt.blogspot.com/2008/01/brewing-another-fisa-delay.html

[truthmatters]

So you think its a good idea to give the corprations immunity if they violated the constitution?

[Classact]

So you think its a good idea to give the corprations immunity if they violated the constitution?How is the constitution violated? How did the president during WWII sensure mail and international communication?

[truthmatters]

This was undertaken by private companies.

Do you now think that we should give a pass to corporations who help the government spy on its citizens illegallly?

I bet once we have a Democratic government you will not like them getting help from corporations spying on you huh?

If this were Hilary Clinton in charge you would be shitting your pants over it.

[Classact]

This was undertaken by private companies.Yes at the direction of the president and the Justice Department.


Do you now think that we should give a pass to corporations who help the government spy on its citizens illegallly?It was not illegal since it was directed by the top agencies of the US government.


I bet once we have a Democratic government you will not like them getting help from corporations spying on you huh?

If this were Hilary Clinton in charge you would be shitting your pants over it. This doesn't seem like a political action but an action to protect America. The action was taken following the attacks of 9-11 to allow the government the ability to determine if other ongoing plots were taking place from within the homeland. I would hope that every conversation via Internet and phone would be listened to in such a situation to glean information that could end plots to do equal or greater damage than that of 9-11. I think it is just plain stupid to punish the private corporations for the gain of trial lawyers for actions directed by the heads of government. If congress has a problem with the heads of government that use such methods to protect the US citizens then they should either charge those heads of state with charges or start impeachment processes. I do not, repeat do not think the American people would support actions against the heads of state that took the actions nor would they desire the companies be sued in court so they could pass the legal bill on to the customers.

[truthmatters]

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17321res20030408.html


http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18650

[Dilloduck]

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17321res20030408.html

Has anyone been prosecuted for non terrorists activities by using evidence obtained through FISA ?

[Classact]

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17321res20030408.html


http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18650I know a lot of people freak out about the invasion of privacy and would prefer to be blown up than have the government listen to a phone call or have the government look at what websites you visit. I, on the other hand like living and like those wringing their hands about their privacy concerns to continue living too.

There is nothing wrong with your position on privacy but I would suggest the option of charging those who authorized the actions and leave the communications companies harmless. To charge or litigate with private companies only results in higher Internet access charges and phone bills.

If the government finds out I hate liberals, I like small breasts and petite women and I'm still alive I may feel violated but I still can feel.

[truthmatters]

http://positiveliberty.com/2005/12/robert-levy-on-fisa.html

This guy is a Cato guy and hardly a liberal.

You are sanctioning a illegal process out of political expediancy.

You may not understand the prescident set by allowing the government to spy on its citizens with impunity and to USE Corporations to do so because you are terrified and wetting your pants in your sleep because you think Abdula is out to get you but other people who actually KNOW the constitution and what is says realize the implications.

We can kick Abdula ass without selling out our founders intentions.

Now go change your pants.

[Dilloduck]

http://positiveliberty.com/2005/12/robert-levy-on-fisa.html

This guy is a Cato guy and hardly a liberal.

You are sanctioning a illegal process out of political expediancy.

You may not understand the prescident set by allowing the government to spy on its citizens with impunity and to USE Corporations to do so because you are terrified and wetting your pants in your sleep because you think Abdula is out to get you but other people who actually KNOW the constitution and what is says realize the implications.

We can kick Abdula ass without selling out our founders intentions.

Now go change your pants.


Some caveats: I am not an expert on the Fourth Amendment or on FISA; I have not read FISA; I cannot speak with confidence on its constitutionality, and I usually presume in favor of the President on such issues. But I think the Steel Seizure Case is very closely analogous to this situation, and, assuming FISA is valid—which it probably is—then the President’s wiretapping clearly exceeds section 1811, and is not warranted by any other source of authority.

from you link---I love hearing all about something from someone who has never read it.

[Classact]

http://positiveliberty.com/2005/12/robert-levy-on-fisa.html

This guy is a Cato guy and hardly a liberal.

You are sanctioning a illegal process out of political expediancy.

You may not understand the prescident set by allowing the government to spy on its citizens with impunity and to USE Corporations to do so because you are terrified and wetting your pants in your sleep because you think Abdula is out to get you but other people who actually KNOW the constitution and what is says realize the implications.

We can kick Abdula ass without selling out our founders intentions.

Now go change your pants.Watch the leaders on the senate floor now. I'll get back with you I spit coffee on my pants.

Never-mind, I found your comments condescending... I know how you feel about someone finding out your most private information... there are Republicans like the PA senator that agrees with you. You folks are simply wrong there are times it is necessary to pry into your privacy and if you don't believe me then travel abroad and on re-entry to the US a US Customs agent will look at skid marks on your dirty underwear if he or she likes... when you file income tax you are required to provide personal information that is not in keeping with the US Constitution... what exactly are you freaking out about?

[JohnDoe]

Here's the question I have about this:

If it was legal "all along" because directed by the President under his article 2 powers, then why is the administration INSISTING that these communication companies get immunity?

Immunity from what, IF it was LEGAL, when these companies were asked to do such by the President/Justice dept or NSA or whoever?

IF it did happen already....which you would have to bet that it did because the immunity is being requested for past digressions, why demand it be legislated by congress at the president's request if not?

This whole thing sends mixed messages, did the president break the law or have war powers to circumvent congress, and if so, then why ask for the immunity is basically what i am wondering...

jd

[Dilloduck]

Here's the question I have about this:

If it was legal "all along" because directed by the President under his article 2 powers, then why is the administration INSISTING that these communication companies get immunity?

Immunity from what, IF it was LEGAL, when these companies were asked to do such by the President/Justice dept or NSA or whoever?

IF it did happen already....which you would have to bet that it did because the immunity is being requested for past digressions, why demand it be legislated by congress at the president's request if not?

This whole thing sends mixed messages, did the president break the law or have war powers to circumvent congress, and if so, then why ask for the immunity is basically what i am wondering...

jd

It costs a bundle to defend yourself even if you are innocent and the costs will passed on the customers. Only lawyers get rich off these deals.

[Dilloduck]

Watch the leaders on the senate floor now. I'll get back with you I spit coffee on my pants.

Never-mind, I found your comments condescending... I know how you feel about someone finding out your most private information... there are Republicans like the PA senator that agrees with you. You folks are simply wrong there are times it is necessary to pry into your privacy and if you don't believe me then travel abroad and on re-entry to the US a US Customs agent will look at skid marks on your dirty underwear if he or she likes... when you file income tax you are required to provide personal information that is not in keeping with the US Constitution... what exactly are you freaking out about?

TM is oviously guilty of something and is demanding her constitutional rights to get away with it . :laugh2:

[Classact]

Here's the question I have about this:

If it was legal "all along" because directed by the President under his article 2 powers, then why is the administration INSISTING that these communication companies get immunity?

Immunity from what, IF it was LEGAL, when these companies were asked to do such by the President/Justice dept or NSA or whoever?

IF it did happen already....which you would have to bet that it did because the immunity is being requested for past digressions, why demand it be legislated by congress at the president's request if not?

This whole thing sends mixed messages, did the president break the law or have war powers to circumvent congress, and if so, then why ask for the immunity is basically what i am wondering...

jdThe administration explains the answers to all of your questions at this link:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080122-2.html

[Classact]

If you can you should watch CSPAN 2 in the background of the debate... I think there is about to be a fist fight or Harry Reid will have a mental breakdown...

[JohnDoe]

It costs a bundle to defend yourself even if you are innocent and the costs will passed on the customers. Only lawyers get rich off these deals.so, is there ''probable cause'' to think that the law was broken and our constitution violated, and only a SC decision will really determine such?

isn't THIS the way it is ''suppose'' to go in our judicial system, constitutionally?

Why circumvent this...?

On the first case that gets to the SC, if their ruling is that what the president ordered is constitutional via article 2, then THERE WILL BE NO future, frivilous implied, lawsuits to worry about, no?

and good morning dillo and classact and TM! :)

jd

[JohnDoe]

If you can you should watch CSPAN 2 in the background of the debate... I think there is about to be a fist fight or Harry Reid will have a mental breakdown...Good morning class act

there is some quorum vote going on on c-span2? Don't see any fist fighting, hahahahaha, not as of yet!

and good morning!

jd

[Classact]

so, is there ''probable cause'' to think that the law was broken and our constitution violated, and only a SC decision will really determine such?

isn't THIS the way it is ''suppose'' to go in our judicial system, constitutionally?

Why circumvent this...?

On the first case that gets to the SC, if their ruling is that what the president ordered is constitutional via article 2, then THERE WILL BE NO future, frivilous implied, lawsuits to worry about, no?

and good morning dillo and classact and TM! :)

jdGood morning John! Did you go to the White house link?

[Classact]

Good morning class act

there is some quorum vote going on on c-span2? Don't see any fist fighting, hahahahaha, not as of yet!

and good morning!

jdIt is like watching paint drying but if you follow it you will see the chess moves that always ends up with Harry Reids red face.

[truthmatters]

from you link---I love hearing all about something from someone who has never read it.

The man is a constitutional scholar at Cato.


I think he is qualified.

[JohnDoe]

The administration explains the answers to all of your questions at this link:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080122-2.html


OK, this makes more sense, thanks for the read Classact! I still don't know for certain, what the administration says is true regarding the immunity, is actually true, but assuming that it is....here is what it says about immunity and on some of this i agree! and some are debatable :D

jd



The Senate Intelligence Committee carefully studied this issue and found that without the limited retroactive liability protection discussed above, "the private sector might be unwilling to cooperate with lawful government requests." The Committee rightly determined that this lack of protection could result in a "possible reduction in intelligence" that is "unacceptable for the safety of our Nation."

The proposed liability protection is based on the Intelligence Committee's conclusion that companies acted in good faith with written assurances from the government and in the aftermath of the worst foreign attack on U.S. soil in history. It would not prevent lawsuits against the government and would not provide immunity from criminal prosecution.

Companies should not be held responsible for verifying the government's determination that requested assistance was necessary and lawful – and such an impossible requirement would hurt our ability to keep the Nation safe. Requiring companies to second-guess the government's determinations would slow or eliminate critical intelligence collection and would place private parties in the impossible position of making legal determinations without access to the classified facts necessary to make such determinations.

Companies alleged to have assisted the government in the aftermath of September 11th should not face massive and costly litigation for helping protect our country. Such litigation also risks the disclosure of highly classified information.

Failing to provide such protection sends an unfortunate message to every private party that may in the future consider whether to help the Nation.

[manu1959]

Here's the question I have about this:

If it was legal "all along" because directed by the President under his article 2 powers, then why is the administration INSISTING that these communication companies get immunity?

Immunity from what, IF it was LEGAL, when these companies were asked to do such by the President/Justice dept or NSA or whoever?

IF it did happen already....which you would have to bet that it did because the immunity is being requested for past digressions, why demand it be legislated by congress at the president's request if not?

This whole thing sends mixed messages, did the president break the law or have war powers to circumvent congress, and if so, then why ask for the immunity is basically what i am wondering...

jd

because you can sue private companies but not the govt......so the private companies need immumity....

[JohnDoe]

because you can sue private companies but not the govt......so the private companies need immumity....


Good Afternoon Manu!

And.............

Ahemmmmmm

this is what was on the site of the Whitehouse regarding lawsuits regarding the spying on citizens and immunity to the private sector...


The proposed liability protection is based on the Intelligence Committee's conclusion that companies acted in good faith with written assurances from the government and in the aftermath of the worst foreign attack on U.S. soil in history. It would not prevent lawsuits against the government and would not provide immunity from criminal prosecution.



IT would NOT prevent lawsuits against the government and WOULD NOT provide immunity from criminal prosecution...

What the heck does this mean? to me, it says they can sue the gvt..., no?

jd

[manu1959]

Good Afternoon Manu!
And.............
Ahemmmmmm
this is what was on the site of the Whitehouse regarding lawsuits regarding the spying on citizens and immunity to the private sector...
IT would NOT prevent lawsuits against the government and WOULD NOT provide immunity from criminal prosecution...
What the heck does this mean? to me, it says they can sue the gvt..., no?
jd

sorry bad wording on my part ..... you can try to sue the govt .....

in any event the companies had no choice they were ordered by the govt. i think it is only fair that the govt. provide them immunity .....