Wiretap Ruling Threatens Telecoms 501
ches_grin writes "Yesterday's ruling on the NSA warrantless wiretapping program could mean that businesses that assisted in the program are in for some serious legal problems. The judge's decision clearly dismissed out of hand the arguments of the telecoms, saying that the protections due journalists and lawyers was a clear matter of the public's best interests." From the article: "Businesses accused of aiding the Bush administration in wiretapping could also be in for a legal bruising, say civil liberties groups that have sued telecom providers AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth for allegedly helping the NSA. The ruling could set a precedent other courts can't ignore. 'Every phone company that is assisting the government in its illegal surveillance would want to think long and hard before it continues that agreement,' says Ann Beeson, the ACLU's lead attorney in the case. 'There are already lawsuits claiming that their cooperation for the past several years is illegal and now that the judge has declared it is illegal, their liability increases. The risk is much greater from a business perspective.'"
What a Novel Concept! (Score:5, Interesting)
What a novel concept!
Let's try this: Let's conspire with a telecom provider to monitor government employee's communications and try to figure out what the government is thinking and what they're doing. Then, we'll blow the story all over the media and claim immunity based on something we just made up. We can claim that we were just making sure the federal government wasn't doing anything wrong and that if they weren't doing anything wrong, they shouldn't have to worry or press charges. I wonder if the telecom provider and those involved would be prosecuted.
Oh, and we'll use a recent event to justify our actions. Like the war in Iraq. Yeah, uh, we need to make sure no one in the government is conspiring to start another war based on false information. That's it, that's why we need to monitor your communications.
If the government is taking actions like these that are illegal for us to take ourselves, it's starts to sound less like we're on equal footing with the government and more like the government is demanding we "do what they say not what they do." Does anyone else remember back in the day when the United States was a government of the people, by the people and for the people? None of these recent NSA actions sound "for" the people. More like "against" with what should be serious legal repercussions. What the hell ever happened to a weak federal government with strong local governments? That was the basic idea for our government I thought. Instead we have some backwards beltway insiders pushing everyone around while my local county and city governments try to figure out what the hell "PC Load Letter" means.
I say we jail those responsible (government directors and telecom CEOs who oversaw it) just as any citizen who tried the same thing would be jailed.
Extortion? (Score:3, Interesting)
"Well, you LET me do it! It's your fault!"
I think it will start a bad presidence. (Score:5, Interesting)
It is similar to a situation where a policeman stops you and tells you to run that stop sign so they can give you a ticket or they will arrest you, on some charge like failure to cooperate with an officer. So what do you do, just get and pay the ticket because getting arrested is much more of a hassle and fighting it will take more of your time (lost work etc...) or stand up for what is right and get arrested and fight it, even though you will loose days or weeks of work costing you more then what the ticket would bring.
What will probably happen is these companies will in turn sue the NSA, for their damages, such as the smart thing would do is fight the traffic ticket and also sue for unlawful conduct by the police, and get some extra for your expenses.
I'm glad. (Score:4, Interesting)
Makes you wonder how often they allow wiretapping without a warrant, doesn't it? Clearly they had no problem with it.
What's the point? (Score:4, Interesting)
What about Bush's administration?Are they going to get something even equal to a wristslap.
As much as I like the idea of blase corporations getting reamed in the hilt..
punishing one party(which is the subservient one) while the main offender(bush) is still scott free.. what exactly is the message that's going to be sent to corporations and business.
Unsure of their options.. the one's they'll take is quite likely the ones that are detrimental to people.
Re:reminds me of a saying.... (Score:1, Interesting)
How do we fix this? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I think it will start a bad presidence. (Score:3, Interesting)
I respectfully disagree with your position, here's why:
The more people who enter into the mindset of "Oh well, even if I know it's wrong, I'm gonna do it becuase it's less of a hassle", the more power is given to people like those who make up the Bush administration.
This isn't about party-line politics; it's about the fundamental principles this country was founded on. Primarily the freedom from the invasion of one's privacy by a tyrannical government.
I don't care which party is in power; it's absolutely irrelevant. The federal government's motto is supposed to be 'for the people and by the people'. I believe it has fundamentally lost it's way.
Anyone who assisted with this breach of law (yes, that's what this is) should be punished accordingly. In or outside the administration.
Re:What a Novel Concept! (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, it's better than that. I'm sure the telcos profitted from the arrangement. That is to say, the gubmint paid the telcos to do their dirty work for them! Yes, that's your money the telcos took to spy on you!
Re:What a Novel Concept! (Score:4, Interesting)
What I find ironic is that many people who were against the Nixon administration (which did similar things to the Bush adminstration) actually support the Bush adminstration. Almost as if their disillusionment with the political system wore off once they actually had to support a family.
Re:so... (Score:5, Interesting)
BZZT. Not only have the courts refuted you on that, but Bush himself has accepted that you're wrong.
"Bush has not broken any laws in the eaves-dropping the NSA has done. We are at war and we are eavesdropping on enemy communications. And make sure you get that phrasing correct. There have not been any wiretaps, only Eaves droppings. Its a huge difference that the Antique media conveniently misses."
Bush has violated 2 constitutional rights here.
a) The right of freedom of association.
b) No search & seizure without a warrant. One person on all of those "international calls" was an American whose call was searched and seized without a warrant. Make no mistake. The US Constitution says nothing involving an American can be searched and seized without a warrant.
But most importantly:
c) The NSA was also monitoring all Americans' calls - every citizen in America was being wiretapped, all without probable cause, all without a warrant. Flat out, the US Constitution completely and expressly forbids this, and there is no room for an alternative interpretation of the Constitution on this issue.
Re:What a Novel Concept! (Score:5, Interesting)
I am shocked, saddened and disgusted by the news each day. Obviously many of us would like to see our present governments replaced with more democratic and accountable institutions. But how? Protesting seems not to work, and so many are apathetic to any kind of truth. There really does need to be more public outcry, perhaps we need to see more anti-Vietnam types of scenes? What do we need to do to convert raised awareness into actions that will get Bush and Blair etc voted out of office?
Or perhaps I just need to move to Cuba where the government might allow me some more freedom, and at least the weather's nice.
Re:Uh, no. Nixon's administration did more than th (Score:5, Interesting)
We've gotten much more efficient at killing people. So our tax dollars are being used for something productive, we just didn't know it.
One (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Limited Government. (Score:4, Interesting)
Proving that something is within the President's power is revealing a state secret? I thought all of the President's powers were enumerated in the Constitution. He now has secret powers that nobody can know about? That is EXACTLY the kind of "President's Prerogative" that the Furher's Princip is all about.
From the Wikipedia article:
This is a time when it IS appropriate and no hyperbole of any kind was introduced.
Re:What a Novel Concept! (Score:4, Interesting)
Furthermore, the only way the government knows that these people might be linked with Al Quaeda is through the program. They didn't start wiretapping because they knew of the links, they know of the links because they started wiretapping.
is there a middleground? (Score:3, Interesting)
The only middle ground is in the level of punishment.
This isn't true in all cases. For instance there are heavy minimium sentencing requirements for drug offenses. Someone caught with illegal drugs can spend more tyme in prison even when they didn't harm anyone than someone who violently harms someone else will.
FalconRe:Nixon = Bush (Score:1, Interesting)
"And your understanding of what the Gold Standard did is not at all accurate. Congress was able to sell debt in 1970 in the same exact way it's able to sell debt today. Remaining on the gold standard would've done nothing but limit the growth of the economy and liquidity of the US currency over the past 30 years. Every country in the world has followed us off of the gold standard. The Free Trade we have today would've been severely impaired if this step hadn't been taken. Fiat currency allows for exchange rates to be set naturally based on the millions of things that affect it, rather then supporting it artifically."
An opposing viewpoint from http://www.totse.com/en/politics/international_ban king_money_laundering/fedpwer.html [totse.com]
FEDERAL RESERVE POWER
Below is quote from Representative Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency for 12 years as quoted from the Congressional Record
The Federal Reserve Board,
SUMMARY OF QUICK FACTS
1a. The Federal Reserve (FED) is a PRIVATELY OWNED, organization. unbelievable? Check the ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA.
b. Below is the list of the owners of the 12 Central Banks:
- Rothschild Bank of London
- Rothschild Bank of Berlin
- Lazard Brothers of Paris
- Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy
- Warburg Bank of Amsterdam
- Warburg Bank of Hamburg
- Lehman Brothers of New York
- Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York
- Goldman, Schs of New York
- Chase Manhattan Bank of New York
In all, there are about 300 VERY POWERFUL, partly foreign individuals that owns the FED.
2. Although the FED is required to give back most of its PROFITS back to the Treasury Dept., there is NO ORGANIZATION that has the power to AUDIT the FED (not even the Congress or the IRS). This creates a HUGE opportunity for "creative accounting" to hide the profit that ROBS the US Tax Payers Hundreds of Billions of Dollars annually.
3. Every year, a few Congressmen introduced a legislation to AUDIT the FED, and every year, the legislation is defeated. The owners of the FED is the most powerful, invisible lobbying power there is.
4. The owners of the FED own the controlling interests in ALL major media in the US. Rockefeller, through Chase Manhattan bank, controls CBS and ABC and 28 other broadcasting firms. Each of the other owners of the FED also have controlling interest in the US media. This explain why the media have been silent about the FED scam. The FED fraud is the biggest and longest cover-up in the US today.
5. According to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the US Congress has the power to print money (The Congress shall have the power...
HISTORY OF THE FED
After several attempts to push the Federal Reserve Banking Act through Congress, a group of bankers funded and staffed Woodrow Wilson's campaign for President. In 1913, Nelson Aldrich, maternal grandfather to the Rockefellers, pushed the Federal Reserve Act through Congress just before Christmas, when most Congressmen were on vacation. Naturally, president Wilson passed the Act when he was elected as a pay back to the bankers.
HOW THE OWNERS OF THE FED PROFIT AT OUR EXPENSE
The US goverment runs a $400 billion deficit annually. To cover this, the US goverment issues bonds
What would you do? (Score:1, Interesting)
I don't think it is all lazy... I don't know exactly what someone is supposed to do to get a voice in this country anymore. Even when there are riots against the WTO there is no media coverage, no public debate. Politics in this country have been short-circuited by the ownership of all media by corporations and the endless focus on issues with which there is no negotiation (abortion, gay marriage, etc.).
Re:What a Novel Concept! (Score:3, Interesting)
Long ago, in a discussion forum far away, I brought up the Onion's clever response to the idea of linking with their headline "Kevin Bacon linked to Osama bin Laden". This led to someone defining a "bin-Laden number" similar to the "Bacon number", the number of in-same-movie hops that it takes to get from person X t Osama.
It turned out that both George Bushes have a bi-Laden number of 1. They've both appeared in movies with him. The movies are documentaries, of course, and none of these three had ever actually volunteered to be in those movies.
But it can be fun to toss off in a conversation that George Bush has a one-hop link to Al Qaeda's famous leader.
(More importantly, it's interesting to look into the Bush family's Saudi connections. Not too surprising for oil men, of course, but interesting in light of their Mideast politics.)
Re:Warrantless Eavesdropping Timeline (Score:2, Interesting)
1980 A 4th Circuit decision, U.S. v. Truong Dinh Hung, applying pre-FISA standards, holds that "the executive branch should be excused from securing a warrant only when the surveillance is conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons" (629 F.2d 908, 439 U.S. 1326, 667 F.2d 1105 (4th Cir. 1981)).