MSNBC's Alex Witt and Col. Jack Jacobs Push For Telecom Amnesty
By Nicole Belle Saturday Feb 23, 2008 4:45pm
MSNBC's morning host Alex Witt brought on Col. Jack Jacobs on Friday to discuss the FISA debate and served up White House talking points very nicely. (h/t Bob F)
JACOBS: There are something like 30 or 40 pending lawsuits already against the telecommunications industry, internet service providers and so on for cooperating with the government and um, violating their privacy. They’re not going to participate any more—the telecommunications industry with the government if they can’t be protected and so Mukasey’s saying there are conversations we could have listened to, information we could have received, but we didn’t get it because nobody’s cooperating.
WITT: So does this mean the terrorists, who were certainly aware of this situation right now, that they got this open window and they’re able to communicate?
JACOBS: They do indeed. They do, indeed. And there are other ways they can take advantage of this situation too, not just this law. But this is a big stumbling block in getting information, which we can use to protect ourselves. It’s a big fight and it will continue and this is an election year, don’t forget, so it’s got partisan overtones you’ll continue to hear about.
Are you flipping kidding me? The amount of fearmongering and misinformation is sickening. Let's be clear: the telecoms want to be immunized from prosecution from violating the privacy of AMERICANS. Not terrorists. Do you really think that al Qaeda will instruct one of their minions walk into court and file suit against AT&T? How stupid do they think the American people are? Wait, don't answer that.
The ACLU has issued a press release scolding the White House for playing politics with the domestic surveillance bill.
Login or Register to post comments.
Personally, I blame RedState.com, Heritage.org, and all the other right-wing sites that put those FISA expiration clocks on their websites, alerting all the terrorists to the expiration of the PAA.
If they hadn't had huge banners announcing a so-called lapse in intelligence gathering for all the world's terrorists to see, then...well, you know how it goes.
Telecom immunity? That's just something else domestically that needs to be worked on.
BUT ALERTING ALL THE TERRORISTS TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE PAA??!! WHY DOES REDSTATE HATE AMERICA AND LOVE TERRORISTS!!??
[/snark]
C'mon Nicole, you aren't surprised, now are you, that someone like Alex Witt or Col. Jack Jacobs would support this telecom immunity bill?
Of course you are not surprised. That is the job of the MSNBC network to support such anti-constitutional measures.
The Telecoms have PLENTY of protection from unwarrented lawsuits. It's called DUE PROCESS. No one I know of is pointing this out. If they have a good excuse in that they wiretapped at the behest of the government and for good reason, as Bush says, a jury will find them not guilty. What concerns Bush, therefore, is that immunity be passed so that no one knows what the hell they've been doing under guise of law.
Sorry. The last line should say "what the hell the Administration has been doing under guise of law."
"We take your privacy seriously, and to better protect and serve you etc, etc."
Your friendly telecommunications company.
Right Gloria, there's no prosecution without evidence, that being the case in many matters of this administration.
Its very hard for the "terrorists" to communicate when the underseas communications and internet cables in the Middle East regions are "mysteriously" severed by "accident."
White House Right Wing talking points versus the Super Intellect-Intuition
No contest. You would think they would have figured that out by now.
Obviously not.
Cheney release those Secret Energy Meeting Docs yet?
What a bunch of crap. These two dolts sound like the Canadian military leader (Hillier) that says "terrists is watchin' our media and reading our blogs and emails".......somewhere in the world, two more villages are missing their idiots
You would think the Telecoms would have at least the basic decency to notify Law Abiding Citizens they were listening in on and offer an apology for the inconvenience and misunderstanding wouldn't you?
Whats so difficult about that?
Oh please! The fix was in a long time ago. No matter what congress does, the Chimpanzee-in-chief is going to pardon all the telecoms before next January anyway. There is going to be a lot more looting of this country before this administration is over. Let's just try to get through this year before those idiots destroy everything. Besides, even if the telcoms don't get immunity and they get sued, the customers will be the ones who will have to pay for it. Just like Enron, and the sub primes and everything else. We are going to get stuck with the bill.
L.A. Confidential @ 11:
Whats so difficult about it is they might come across some LAW ABIDING Citizen with integrity who's not afraid of these people and might say . .
Oh? And just what information is it you gathered on me. Do you want to tell me who received this information about my private life? Or do I have to take you to court to get the answer?
Right-Wing Supports Amnesty for ‘Illegals,’ as Long as They Spy on Americans
No Telecom Immunity
No Corporate Hackery
No More Spying On Americans to "make us safer" BS
Please, Write Your Representative
It is not really how stupid the public is. It is how stupid the democratic party is for caving time and time again. If the democratic party stood up more the conservative media could not get away with their lies.
Alex Witt and Jack Jaccobs, I want to know if your really scared shitless over this bullshit being propagated by the GOPig fear mongers. I guess you don't believe the most trusted journalist on MSNBC, your own Keith Olbermann when he lays out to a fine point all reasons to not be afraid of these fear tactics. Don't you watch his show on your own network?
cheflovesbeer @ 16:
Wouldn't surprise me if the Dems see this thing as a tool they can use to weed out their political enemies also if they get in in 09 at this point.
A much stronger counter-argument that Greenwald pointed out a few weeks ago: telecom companies are already required to comply with all legal requests by the government. If the government asks them to do something, all they have to do is show the request is legal.
Gawd, I loathe supposed news casters.
So Alex Wittless has decided on the merits of this issue already. Those big bad Democrats are making America less safe because they insist on the rule of law. If Bush wants to engage in wholesale wiretapping, what is wrong with getting a warrant from a secret FISA judge? That too would protect the telephone companies. No one has demonstrated that this illegal activity has netted one terrorist - or stopped one terrorist plot. Where's Osama? Why can all his new recruits find him without the benefit of wiretapping and we can't - with the benefit of illegal wiretapping?
As a "serious" journalist, Witt decided that her next story was about Britney Spears' dopey antics. I'm curious, to what demographic was she appealing with a sequence like that? I'm curious about another thing: what was the story after Britney?
Privacy went out the window with cordless telephones. Anybody with a police scanner can listen in to any phone conversation on any cordless phone. My neighbor demonstrated that for me last week.
Nicole Nicole Nicole...
You're usually pretty bright and not so reactionary...but your logic doesn't add up on this one...
Look I'm not saying I agree with the talking points being propagated here...but they're not saying that the reason Telecoms want immunity is because they're worried about being sued by terrorists...their argument (which again, I don't agree with) is that the Telecoms want immunity because they don't want to be sued by anyone...and because without immunity yes americans would rightly be able to sue them...and for that reason they wont participate in the govt's eavesdropping...and so because they are not participating right now, the argument goes that RIGHT NOW, because they're not participating (assuming we should believe them on this) americans and terrorists alike are able to communicate without fear of being listened to...
so bottom line: they're not saying telecoms are worried about being sued by terrorists, they're saying the telecoms are worried about being sued period. That worry has stopped them from participating in the govts eavesdropping which opens the door to unfettered communication among terrorists. As a matter of logic, yes, they're argument holds water. As a matter of what is best for democracy and the maintenance of democracy...no their argument does not hold water. Eavesdropping on Americans obviously threatens democracy and could ulimately lead to our undoing. It certainly undermines the very principals on which we stand--a country that spies on its own citizens is no longer a true democracy and perhaps is no longer worth defending or protecting...for why would we defend totalitarianism in any form?
So what is it every Law Abiding American has to get CIA Security Clearance to have some basic peace of mind anymore in this country?
not misinformation, DISinformation. Alex Witt is MSNBC's answer to Ingraham/Coulter/Fitzpatrick... her bias is as obvious as her hair extensions.
And on Nader, since that thread's old as the Pleistocene in the blogosphere's warp speed, he is the Harold Stassen of the 21st Century.
[Deleted. Off topic-Sitemonitor]
You want to tap a line?
Then get a FUCKING WARRANT!!!
Contrary to the current wisdom, some person trying to set up an attack here is certainly NOT going to presume that he or she is now immune from our government's surveillance.
If the feds are after someone, FISA will give them their warrant. If they have no specific target, then that's just an admission that they are vacuum cleaning the system, which is blatantly illegal. None of their arguements hold even a drop of water. It's astounding that the sheeple have come to accept the term "warrantless wiretaps" as a normal part of our lexicon. That term should only be found on arrest warrants. But now it's "Oh, OK. I guess so."
Yet, in a way, the people who are suing the telecomms are performing a vital patriotic act. They have put some fear into the telecomms, who are now dictating some different terms to the criminals running this fascist program.
Hmm, how much ad revenue do you reckon these telecom companies might generate across all GE's channels (including MSNBC)?
And how many deals does GE have with telecom companies to bundle its products?
And how much money is GE making from military contracts?
All these questions might lead to the most obvious question: Shouldn't a disclaimer be run to make viewers aware of these obvious conflicts of interest?
The TelCom industry won't cooperate and thereby puts the survival of our nation at risk? Take the corporate officials of each of the companies to GITMO and waterboard the hell out of them until they agree to cooperate. I'm tired of screwing around with people
who hate freedom. Let's kick some corporate butt!
All I can say to George Bush is that "you go with the surveillance you have, not the surveillance that you want to have."
As for privacy, I supposed anyone can peek into the windows of their neighbor, but at least nobody is getting paid to do so. I they get caught there would be consequences. I don't want my tax dollar go toward paid intrusion of my privacy. The telecom now realize that there will be consequences if they continue to spy on Americans. It is the Govt that are not cooperating with FISA in spying procedures. Not all telecom corporation violated the law.
Notice how Witt didn't even bother with the " Devils Advocate " position or what they usually say ,when they wanna go after somebody " some people say " . Hell with that, we're going straight to supporting spying on the American Citizens , besides NBC ignored this issue for the longest , as well as never having Klein on to discuss what he found at At&T , the spy network , incorporated into their system , to spy on American Citizens .
NBC has spent more time on Britney Spears in ONE DAY , then the illegal spying all year . Only when Bush's despicable Amnesty for LAW BREAKERS needed a push by the media , did the raise the issue again .
And this war pimp Col. jacobs , who pimped the invasion of Iraq knows damn we'll there are hundreds of ways for the " enemy " to communicate, and use your common sense , how many Al Qaeda guys are calling the United States anyway , HUGH ? 1 , 1000. Hell there's such a thing as U.S. POSTAL Service , how ya going to stop that ?
Mussolini said it correctly , "corporatism is blending of state and corporate power " and NBC's lack of balance and outright support of illegal spying is obscene and an insult to Americans .
Those terrarists won't have to use soup cans anymore!
Doesn't this bumpkin of an interviewer do any reading on her own? What one sided bull shit again from MSM.
You would expect this on pravda network, but I'm always disappointed when the MSM puts some novice face up there to let the administration bloviate their talking points about how they can't do anything to gather intelligence because the Congress won't cooperate.
I thought they COULD wire tap, with court orders?? Come on America, wake the f*ck up to this nonsense.
This bitch needs to be canned. What an imbicile.
Alex Witt -- proving that peroxide can do terrible things to a gal's brain.
Kahoneez @ 31:
What you expect from a person who's wealthy and influential parents crammed her through the "prestigious" Marlborough School for Girls in Los Angeles?
A maverick?
Let me tell you what the authoritarians hate most. Intelligent Law Abiding Citizens with Integrity who call them on their bullshit.
Thats what really gets to them.
Bamboozled, good points.
I read somewhere where the phone companies get $1000 for each tap. That means that if the government taps a million lines, AT&T nets a cool billion! What a deal!
If you'll recall, QUEST told the spooks that if they wanted to tap peoples phones on their system, they'd need a warrant.
Don't kid yourself, though, lawsuits or not, this is VERY profitable for the phone companies and there is plenty of incentive to keep going. I think that the government is just worried that the civil actions (lawsuits) would force the government to expose their illegal activities.
"They’re not going to participate any more—the telecommunications industry with the government if they can’t be protected"
That's a big lie. Cooperation can be mandated as it was when Congress passed the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). What is being sought here is authority to operate outside the law.
So, the question here is, do we want surveillance conducted within the law, or unlawfully. The argument being presented is that immunity should be granted so that telecommunication companies will continue to operate outside the law.
Alex Witt — proving that peroxide can do terrible things to a gal’s brain.
A USC gal.
NoBuddy @ 38:
Anyone who would answer that with unlawfully needs a mental examination.
Speaking of Alex Witt the twit, ever notice her Queen-of-England inflections/pronunciations? Headlines is headloins, not becomes naught...give me a break Alex, you're reciting the news and doing interviews, not addressing Parliament!
Richard Clarke: “Let me be clear: Our ability to track and monitor terrorists overseas would not cease should the Protect America Act expire. If this were true, the president would not threaten to terminate any temporary extension with his veto pen. All surveillance currently occurring would continue even after legislative provisions lapsed because authorizations issued under the act are in effect up to a full year.”
What is with this "open window" bullshit? It needs to be made perfectly clear that this isn't some ticking time bomb situation.
Tom @ 39:
Rich Kid who's idea of hard times is a split fingernail or having to cancel a tooth whitening appointment.
They'll get what they want, eventually.
That's America. Big business rules.
If the telecom immunity goes through, I will seriously consider voting for Ralph Nader.
The Democrats certainly aren't doing anything to protect my privacy.
NoBuddy @ 38:
NoBuddy -
Good point. They're required to answer warrants whether they feel like or it or not.
MSNBC is feeding the public garbage.
Ryan @ 15:
It's past the 'write your Representative' stage.
If you want to have any impact at all, write Chairmen Reyes, Conyers, and Leahy and add your email to their stack.
CalGeorge @ 44:
Right then in Nov after he gets 03% of the Vote you'll what then?
ok bush you want telecom immunity, then.............
after you have made public ALL that you have declared
executive privilege since the beginning of your administration
then and only then will we consider telecom immunity......
fair enough?.............i didn't think so
so you can go fuck yourself with your own hand or
continue to use cheney's hand up your butt.
L.A. Confidential @ 47:
I will salute my fellow alienated Naderites and go back to swallowing the crap that the two parties dish out everyday in Congress.
Barney Google @ 12:
We are going to get stuck with the bill and the bull.
nananananananana! Take your fear agenda and stick it where the sun don't shine. Fear cannot coexist with Hope and Hope is what the american people have now. The GOP is all about fear; of course, it would be with their false flag operations and voting machine rigging! They'd better fear Obama as next President because he will have all of Chimpy's tools to be used against Bush and his marauding Crime Cabal. Oh, I cannot wait!
Now that's something legitimate these fear mongers NEED to be fearful of - their gig will be up and many of them will be doing jail time when all is said and done; ergo, the mass exodus of Reptards from Congress recently.
Oh No, Fear mongers - take your fear agenda and stick up your sorry anal orifices. This time we have no time or place for fear in our lives. We've been victimized and paralyzed by your brand of fear for 7 years and will no longer be subjugated to your cruel and unlawful tactics.
Surely you don't take anything the witless Witt says seriously? It is just so predictable. And it shows how lost the media really are. When covering Dems v. Republicans, there is no contest-- the frame is Republican. When covering Hillary v. Obama the frame is Hillary's. The agenda is clear. Except for Olberman, MSNBC relentlessly seeks to shore up its interests and undermine challengers, the grassroots, and even, often, the facts.
Notice that McCain's word is taken as good by most in the media. Fat chance that would happen with a Dem.
There is no sense even trying to 'take them back." The media are part of the admin propaganda machine.
What's more realistic is that if the GOPoopers think that the people are ramping up against the telecoms right now, this will be child's play when the people get through with our GOP congressional criminals. The people will finally have their say. The GOP criminals will be put on trial for their actions and just like Abramoff, will march off in an orange jumpsuit. The class actions are being organized against sitting members of Congress right now in the unnecessary, illegal deaths of some 4,000 of our military for their "Iraq Vote" (which, BTW, was totally unlawful under international law of the United Nations Charter and will result in an immediate suit against Bush and Cheney the moment they step out of office at the Hague). Then the people will scrutinize the Iran War Vote and those voting Aye will be held accountable for clear and unlawful "derelection of duty" and will wish for dismissal rather than face those charges.
They're grooming us for the next big thing......
KathyinBlacksburg @ 52:
You are so right. The sycophantic whoring MSM are part of the fascist coup on our democracy. They deserve to also be behind bars for violating the Truth In Reporting laws in this country and will ultimately have their feet held to the fire on this.
I've concluded that absolutely NOTHING with the few exceptions you've noted of Olberman and Cafferty should be believed. I believe nothing coming from the reichwing propaganda machine called television. That's why Bush & Co. tried to heavy handedly to shut down the internet.....it's called the Dumbing Down of America and the rise of the Propaganda Reich - otherwise known as Bush's "presi-duncy". The MSM erroneously believes that they will be the next Kingmakers. Wrong!
Do your own research and believe nothing you hear on Bush's propaganda megaphones.
It was clear from the outset that the Reich wanted Hillary as the candidate since they've been spying on her for years (illegally of course) and have so much dirt on her that she will be swiftboated the first week if she were to become the candidate. Why is there no chatter about Vince Foster's mysterious death or Whitewater? Pretty telling if you ask me.
The people will fool this group of con artists this time around. The People are wresting back the power of this flagging democracy and The People will be calling for swift justice to be brought to the criminals who have destroyed our constitution and laws of this land.
The real problem is that eavesdropping will be conducted on business. Nobody in MSM will talk about this issue, but that is the real goal. Just as the US eavesdropped on the Europeans on the AirBus activities, those same tactics are now what the government is requesting. I think the phone company should be prosecuted to the furthest extent of the law. No Amnesty. Ever. It will cost you your small business, it may cost you a contract, it may cost you real money.
"How stupid do they think the American people are? "
Bush was 'elected' twice....sometimes I wish I was a Canadian.
General Electric should not be allowed to own any of the media at all. They simply use it to advance their agenda which then dictates the evil propaganda that they issue .. as well as the 'journalists' and 'reporters' that they hire to do their bidding. They should be charged, tried and convicted of purposeful, criminal, fraud committed against the American people.
Barney Google @ 12:
I know of no previous instance in which an industry was 'pardoned.' Do you?
That's outside the President's pardon power. It would require Congress to immunize, and they aren't getting that.
rainbird @ 57:
Bush was NOT elected to federal office, EVER.
Enough with that myth.
It's worth noting that the U.S. likely used undersea mini-subs last month to cut four or five telecom cables--in two places--fixing one break with the new TAP, and leaving the other break for the foreign telecoms to fix.
No way they could hide it, and along with cellphone spyware from Vodaphone exposed by Italian and Greek agents three years ago (agents who apparently suddenly decided life wasn't worth living, nevermind the new babies and happy previous lives), the US is in flagrant violation of the separate rights of our allies.
If you claim we are a "Nation of Laws" then whoever breaks those
laws can never be described as "cooperating with the government" !
Breaking law is breaking the rules of governance.
Chuck Szmanda @ 37:
It's not the first time the government has scratched the telecom industry's back to the tune of billions.
Remember the legislation that allowed mobile phone users to keep their phone number if they switched companies? (I'm certain people praised Bush for that one.)
What was hidden in the fine print was that the telecom companies could charge a fee every month, not just to the people who decided to keep their numbers, but to EVERY CUSTOMER, EVERY MONTH.
This little charge is still on your phone bill every month. A huge windfall to the telecom companies. Just a buck or so, FROM EVERY CUSTOMER THEY HAVE, EVERY MONTH from now on, for a service only a small percentage of people will use.
That's what we like to call "the conservative tax," or otherwise known as "taxation without representation."
.
SINCE WHEN IS WARRANTLESS CONSTITUTIONALLY LEGAL?
Let's see: Cornell Law
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I'm still searching for where it say, "Under special circumstances no warrants may be issued..."
Patriots stand and fight FOR the Constitution of the USA.
R E M E M B E R:
"They(sic) hate us for our freedoms"
As an American, ONE of the Rights and Freedoms I have so as to secure my future Liberty IS the freedom from TYRANNY and a form of government that seeks to pry into my private life, PERIOD! THAT IS A DEFINING CHARACTERIZATION OF WHAT IT MEANS TO BE AN AMERICAN, and now, people want to throw that part of it all away.
Well, now we have a system that seeks to undo defining Principles to what it means to BE an American. All because we fear protecting our freedoms they(sic) hate us for. So, in letting go of these freedoms, so that they(sic) won't hate us for anymore, what exactly is it we win?
.
Why aren't these right wingers screaming about how unpatriotic the telecoms are being by saying they will refuse to cooperate without immunity. It seems they care more about profits then protecting America.
Warrant are still obtainable at your local FISA court. Get them now on sale, we're given them away!
Fire that bitch!!! I always get the feeling that she is a right wing shill, now we have proof!
LA Times: White House backtracks on claims of lost intelligence
WE MUST NOT LET THESE BASTARDS (read "reporters") CONTINUE TO INSULT OUR INTILLEGENCE WITH SLIGHT-OF-HAND QUESTIONS!!!
30 to 40 lawsuits?! Hey Jack, if they have no merit, they'll get tossed out! How 'bout a little fire, scarecrow!
And how 'bout Alex Witt? Still pissed off that her jobber triumvirate of a group can't get anymore cheap bookings on Imus.
Look up Alex Witt in the dictionary and a picture of Nancy Martling Sirianni appears. Throw on some more pleather why don't ya!
David Schmicher @ 56:
The "other" real problem is that this is the precedent by which EVERY corporation would duck accountability for their misdeeds. Make no mistake; polluters, shoddy manufacturers, and just plain crooks are studying the telcom immunity issue with an eye toward bending it to their own needs.
Alex deWitt is a versatile 3rd rate Bush cheerleader (reputation made while poll numbers OK'd it in public) Now she's so much the replacement long haired blond bimbette a la Monica Crowley its a mystery that there are people who still think she isn't the designated RNC water-chick at MSNBC.
Hmm, well, well, what-a-ya-know....
http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=15450
More proof that Alex is a repugnant shill.....
Does anyone seriously believe that this administration would stop spying on anyone because it wasn't legal ?
Paul in LA @ 46:
I completely agree. I think that it's important to do both. Congress assumes no one is paying attention to what they are doing, and unfortunately they're right.
Any legal scholars out there? Ex post facto laws are prohibited by the Constitution. Isn't granting amnesty/immunity a form of ex post facto?
OH NO, i just realized this is "it". We "haven't been hit again since 9/11" and the nexus of politics & terror come together. The "warnings" always show up when something they don't like happens or something they've done is exposed. This is their heart of darkness, the country is finally looking at it with the shock of 9/11 having worn off (everybody's read Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine, right?) and saying "ewww...this ain't right". There's only 1 way for them to get back to where they want to be... COG... that Oregon congressman who wasn't allowed to see the plans, the reports of al Qaeda back at full strength... everyone focused on an upcoming election... a long history of "intelligence failures" and oh damn the fu(king liberals just stopped a "good" intelligence program so whose really to blame?
did i just make u wet yourself?
cuz i'm feeling on the verge of being terrorized myself
Jack Jacob's and Witless are just 2 of the reasons why I will not watch MSNBC. She is a total dope who is incapable of any deep thinking. As for Jacobs, he reminds me of the stereotypical guy in a trenchcoat who hangs around a girls school just waiting to expose himself.
I can't stand him. Does he just hang around in the wings at MSNBC with Buchanan all day long?
Witless thinks she can sing--LOL!!!!
Ryan @ 75:
The point is that the bill has left the floors of both Houses, so your Representative probably has no impact on the result from this point. The Chairmen who are heading the conference committee (and the Dem leadership) are the only ones who remain in positions of influence -- aside from the REPUBLICANS in the conference committee, though the constellation of the committee has not been released to my knowledge.
M @ 76:
Reducing penalties is NOT ex post facto -- increasing them would be. The Supremes ruled two hundred years ago that Congress can reduce penalties retroactively any time it wants.
Can I sue the govt. for breaking the fourth amendment?
This is really the crux of the illegal spying as it relates to the telecoms. If they can’t get Congress to make illegal spying legal, then they will get the telecoms to spy illegally and give them immunity from those actions. It’s really the same thing.
Only this administration was PAYING the telecoms to spy for them – illegally.
Isn’t that payment ALSO illegal? Something about conspiracy to commit a felony?
It’s bewildering to me why the ruckus over the telecoms doesn’t match that over this administration granting FEDERAL CONTRACTS to commit these crimes. And to be sure, if there weren’t a crime, they wouldn’t be debating immunity/amnesty.
Referral to DOJ OPR to conduct an ethics/criminal inquiry into DOJ AG on the alleged false statements he's made to Congress. Possible criminal referral in re atty standards of conduct violations to DC Atty Disciplinary Board.
It is probably true that they are no longer cooperating. The thing is that they are refusing to do it illegally anymore. Get warrants and there will be no problem. Funny how they don't mention that.
Harry Scrote @ 81:
Nope. Same problem as in the ACLU court case -- unless you can PROVE you were spied upon, you have no standing.
It's Alex Twitt.
Paul in LA @ 80:
Thanks. Reduce what penalties? We have no idea what they did! There have been no consequences so there are no penalties to reduce. How is it possible to provide amnesty/immunity if there is no known violation of the law? "Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali" As you can tell I am having a great deal of trouble dealing with this issue.
You know they need to explain what they mean by "Co operation" by the Telecoms with the Gov't?
Last I remember the House of Representative is "Gov't".
All the President has to do is open up his spying and 3 days later provide a warrant or drop it.
Now the Telecom not wanting to "co operate" with Gov't. Don't they really mean is break the constitution and spy on Americans with no warrant simply if the President asks? The President does even have to ask pretty please if he provides a warrant and the Telecoms are compelled to comply with a warrant.
Just a thought: but if the telecoms had immunity then why even cooperate with the govt after getting it? they could give the ol' bird to Bush/Cheney basically saying, 'thanks for this great immunity thing, and by the way, we're not giving you guys a byte of info, so show yourselves out. shoo, shoo.' now wouldn't that be too darn funny, if they told Bush and gang to shove off. i would laugh my arse off (if it wouldn't be so enraging).
Paul,
Your comments are legally questionable.
Paul in LA @ 85:
How do you know this? Where did you get your law degree? It sounds like you're telling someone that they do or do not have a legal case. It sounds like you're advising someone about whether they do or do not have a basis to bring suit without knowing their specific situation. That is not appropriate for you to do, even if you are an attorney, as you have no details about the issues or concerns.
"unless you can PROVE you were spied upon, you have no standing -- This is a legal argument, which may or may not be valid. If you can "prove you were spied on" the issue of "standing" is moot: You have the basis to survive a motion to dismiss/summary judgement. The issue isn't whether you can "prove" you were spied on; but whether there is evidence that you should have access to that will help you provide standing, and then you develop a case through discovery to prove you were spied on.
It doesn't sound like you know what you're talking about, especially when the case of the FISA violations related to allegations that the US government has illegally destroyed the very data needed to establish standing; but you haven't considered the possibility that the evidence destruction, needed to establish standing, could be circumvented, if it can be shown the purpose of the evidence destruction was to hide illegal activity, and is not related to a bonafide national security issue, state secret, or bonafide law enforcement/intelligence objective.
These are not clear cut issues. Just because you say something "must be proven" doesn't mean you know what you're talking about on the other issues related to FISA violation. Overall, your comments belong in the waste heap with the Bybee Memo. Find a real lawyer before you assert whether something is or isn't required.
M,
When you read Paul's comments, proceed with caution. He doesn't sound like he knows what he's talking about.
M @ 87:
Whether something is or isn't "ex post facto" is unrelated to the core issue: Whether Congress, as a legislative body, can or cannot exercise judicial power by affecting the outcome of pending litigation. ARguably, it is unconstitutional for the Congress to grant immunity to the telecoms and, in effect, eject the cases from the court.
The question is really asking whether there is a way to block what is hoped. The question isn't narrowly with ex post facto, but whether there are other means to nullify the Act of Congress. Yes, if the courts determine that the grant of immunity was an illegal assertion of judicial power by the Congress.
Paul in LA @ 85:
You failed to address the grounds for dismissal. A case can survive summary judgement without a plaintiff being able to "prove" anything; the question turns on whether they are "likely" to prevail. You are also not distinguishing between administrative, civil, and criminal proceedings; nor are you considering the different standards of evidence for each.
Paul,
This is baloney. Pelosi blocked the House from considering the bill.
Which one, by bill number, are you saying Pelosi permitted a vote on?
Paul in LA @ 79:
What do you mean, "Constellation" of the committee? That's non-sense. You been staring at the lunar eclipse too long?
Paul in LA @ 61:
What is the basis for your assertion that the US was involved; and what is the basis for your assertion that the US fixed some of the broken lines?
If, as you assert, the US did this, why is there no record of these types of disruptions during the US's undersea tapping program with the fiber optic spliciing? They splice (cut, repair) them undetected. These failure modes today are not splices, but cuts/destruction so that there's little data going through. It doesn't sound like you know what youj're talking about.
Again.
If this bill passes we should flood the net with every BUZZ word till the bells go off in their heads. Pass this bill and we'll burn it down. Sooner or later the sheeple will wake up and dine on your Big Brother Brains. They have the guns but WE have the numbers...and some guns.
Paul,
You've contradicted yuorself. First you said people should write; then you say wrting won't do much good.
Which is it?
A. Write Them:
Paul in LA @ 46:
--------------------------------------------------
B. Writing Is A Waste "No Impact"
Paul in LA @ 79:
Rob @ 95:
Pelosi said this bill wasn't going to get a vote. Now, people are talking as if the vote's been taken. Huh?
Which bill number are you talking about?
I would really like to ask Col. Jacobs why he is violating his oath to defend the Constitution? It doesn't matter that he is no longer in the active duty military, his oath to defend the Constitution doesn't end simply because he has retired. I would also like to ask him what is wrong with obtaining a warrant in order to gather information through surveillance. The FISA court even allows them to start listening into peoples communications before getting a warrant, as long as the government seeks a warrant within a certain time frame after the surveillance has began. The US Constitution, & FISA have enabled our government to defend & keep us safe for decades. It is the fault of Bush, & other fascists like him who make us less safe. Because fear, & terrorism are the tools they use to oppress us all as they dismantle the laws that keep us free.
Paul in LA @ 60:
The electors elected Bush to Office. You're looking foolish, Paul: You're wrong.
Again.
This is becoming a waste of your time posting. It's convoluted garbage. Are you asking C&L commenters to fact check you for your novel?
Paul in LA @ 59:
Although Congress can make laws regulating how the President asserts power, Congress has passed no law preventing the President from pardoning an industry, company, or those who carried out an alleged illegal policy.
There is no basis for you to assert that this is "outside" his power to pardon.
There is no basis for you to assert that "only" Congress can immunize this: You haven't commented on whether there is or isn't an existing immunity agrement which Congress and the President haven't disclosed; or whether Congress, in assenting to not impeaching, has left open the option for a pardon.
Moreover, you've contradicted yourself: in other comments, youj've effectively said that the House and Senate have both "passed" these bills (which they have not) and the bill awaits "only" a conference committee. Thus, for you to say "they aren't getting that" isn't consistent with your other unreliable assertions.
You're using convoluted non-sense to reach dubious conclusions.
Again.
The House has the power to impeach. The House is not bound by the Senate. The SEnate has refused to conduct a trial of former government officials; but this does not mean that the House may only impeach US government officials. The House could impeach anyone, or anything, including the telecoms. As long as the President has the power to pardon, the House has the power to impeach and deny that entity the possibility of a pardon.
Watch these, all of this chatter is explained go to the forth link and send Sheldon Whithouse a note of thanks. Then at the last site sign the petition.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFWIHbf50EI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPT9JxTBxok&feature=related
http://rawstory.com/rawreplay/index.php?p=641
http://www.kintera.org/site/apps/ka/ct/contactcustom.asp?c=feIJKQMEF&b=3...
Please sign this and pass this on. It is very important we stop this bill, the lies and the fear mongering. Don't think others will do this for you. It is truly the FIERCE URGENCY OF NOW!
http://www.kintera.org/site/apps/ka/ct/contactcustom.asp?c=feIJKQMEF&b=3...
Rob @ 101:
Sorry Senator Sheldon Whitehouse's link is http://whitehouse.senate.gov/contact.cfm
The media today is the court of public opinion but there are no more prosecutors who cross examine the testimony. There are only defense attorneys who ask questions that allow the witness to defend themselves.
Jeez, Col. Jack. Now we're not going to be able to catch Osama when he calls out for Dominos to deliver a couple of medium pizzas to his cave. Damn! And we were so close to getting him 'till the terrorist loving Dems let the law expire!
ok... where do i start..... alex witt is a pinch faced, thin lipped, suv driving, bush voting, right wing [Deleted-Sitemonitor]. we dont need this republican bitch telling us what to think. i just turn her off.
alex witt sucks the republican dick and swallows the right wing kool-aid. she editorializes about news stories and attempts manipulate opinion..... she is a propagandist. not a news person. FAUX NEWS NETWORK is waiting for her.
of course more bullshit propaganda. So what you're saying is that terrorists now have an open window to communicate with each other???? We should all be terrified and sign over our rights immediately. Of course I really doesn't matter, since the telecom companies are illegally participating anyway!
Oh yeah, did anyone else notice that the next story on the agenda was Brittney Spears?? That kinda shows how much of a real journalist this hack is.
Login or Register to post comments.