Thanos Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/12/AR2008021201202_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008021203095 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Surely not the Dem controlled Senate. Bush must have lied to them or I fear Karl Rove must be secretly controlling them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Wow. It took one whole post to make it partisan. Way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Thanks...I accept tips if you're really impressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_cavalierman Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Not happy about it....but politics is the art of compromise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DGreenistheBest Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 I wonder if they are surveiling (it's a word) us right now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_cavalierman Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Bomb - Planes - Al Qaeda - Jihad - Washington I guess I'll find out if they are monitoring this website any minute now:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Not happy about it....but politics is the art of compromise. no, politics is the art of ****ing over your constituents and continuing to get elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 So much for checking or balancing. Congressional democrats; dropping the ball since 2006. :applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 I hate this immunity. If they weren't violating a law, why do they need it? If they were, why did they? :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Its good to see disappointment in leadership is consistent no matter whose in charge. Especially those that RAN on this exact issue and were not just sitting around when it happened and made a choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Will it pass in the House? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 I hate this immunity. If they weren't violating a law, why do they need it? If they were, why did they?:mad: I love this immunity. It's not like the NSA or any of the other alphabet soups have a load of their own systems to monitor communications, so they rely on the phone/online companies to share their equipment and allow them access. They aren't doing anything illegal in doing that, the legality comes down to the monitors and who/what they are listening to. However, the way the ACLU and other leftist lawyers are given leave to operate in this country, it would only be so long before the companies themselves were drawn into a lawsuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Bomb - Planes - Al Qaeda - Jihad - WashingtonI guess I'll find out if they are monitoring this website any minute now:D haha, he's in Gitmo now. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thanos Posted February 13, 2008 Author Share Posted February 13, 2008 This was a bs vote.Jim Webb voted for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_cavalierman Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 haha, he's in Gitmo now. :laugh: I really shouldn't have said that.... Black choppers circling the house! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Seriously, has this Dem Congress done anything they were voted in to do? Besides minimum wage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Besides minimum wage? 38 of the states were already there or higher? and some of the states don't need to be the same as others.... Kansas does not equal NY. So hey, it was a feel good one to say the least. and 24 of them: Fed is 5.85 http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930886.html 1. Will rise to $8.00 on 01/01/08. 2. Will rise to $7.15 on 01/01/2008. 3. Will rise to $7.55 on 07/24/2008. 4. Will rise to $7.75 on 07/01/2008. 5. Will rise to $6.55 on 07/24/2008. 6. Will rise to $7.25 on 01/01/2008. 7. Will rise to $6.55 on 07/01/2008. 8. Will rise to $7.00 on 10/01/2007. 9. Will rise to $6.55 on 07/24/2008. 10. Will rise to $8.00 on 01/01/2008. 11. Will rise to $7.40 on 07/01/2008. 12. Will rise to $6.50 on 09/01/2007. 13. Will rise to $7.25 on 07/24/2009. 14. Will rise to $6.50 on 01/01/2008. 15. Will rise to $7.25 on 07/24/2009. 16. Will rise to $6.55 on 07/24/2008. 17. Will rise to $6.55 on 07/24/2008. 18. Will rise to $6.55 on 07/24/2008. 19. Will rise to $7.15 in July 2008. 20. Will rise to $6.55 on 07/24/2008. 21. Will rise to $6.55 on 07/24/2008. 22. Will rise to $5.85 on 09/08/2007. 23. Will rise to $6.55 on 07/24/2008. 24. Will rise to $7.25 on 07/01/2008. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 They aren't doing anything illegal in doing that, the legality comes down to the monitors and who/what they are listening to. Amendment 4The 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. Please explain to us your legal reasoning, in how you get from the above portion of the Constitution, to a point where "give us all of your records for all telephone calls your company has ever handled, and give us back door access so that we can continue to monitor them in the future without bothering to even ask" is, in your opinion, not illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 And I get it that there are a lot of folks trying to paint this as a Democrat bill, but the part of the article I've read says Rockefeller was one of 17 Democrats who joined 49 Republicans and one independent to reject an amendment offered by Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) that would have stripped the immunity provision from the bill. So if you really want to bring political parties into the discussion, then you're blaming the wrong one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Telecom immunity: Let me say this again. Do you really want companies to be sued for complying with the government? So how does this work? Should every company sit down and determine if the government *MIGHT* be doing something that would later on be found illegal before complying with every government request or order? Where does the insanity stop? If, because you comply with a government order someone is hurt, should they be able to sue you? On what planet does this makes sense? :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 11 percent approval. This is why. Im happy, but the people who voted for the Dems to lead are beside themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 The immunity is there to prevent frivilous lawsuits, of which there are far far too many, by trial lawyers-- And to encourage the phone companies, which otherwise would likely not participate for fear of lawsuit, to participate in and facilitate surveillance programs. I'm not sure if everyone realizes just how precarious our position is (and I don't think I do either--but IMO it's pretty damn serious)--this surveillance is IMO fully necessary to prevent another major attack on an American city. I understand the balance between liberties and national security. But I'm pretty sure that I'd prefer having my phone calls to my wife and my friends listened to than see Chicago turn into a nuclear wasteland. And I honestly think that's what we're dealing with here. And while I'm sure abuses of this power will happen, the lion's share of this program will be used to detect, locate and prosecute terrorists that want to kill Americans. IMO we have a clear and present danger with malignant terrorist cells ready to matasticize all over the world. Thus, I'm fully in favor of this program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Telecom immunity: Let me say this again. Do you really want companies to be sued for complying with the government? Absolutely. I think that the plaintiff's burden of proof should be high, if he wants to win. As in, I think the plaintiff should have to prove that the company knew that the government's request was bogus. However, in this case, that's not hard. What we've got here, is that the government wants to do something which the Constitution specifically says that they can't do. In absolutely no uncertain terms. (I, personally, refer to this using the term "Treason".) So the government wants to set up a deal where somebody else commits Treason, on their behalf. And then the government will shield the traitor from justice. This is no different from a process where, say, the government wanted to search every home in Fairfax County. They don't have a warrant to do so. (And the Constitution says they can't get one). So they hire a team of burglars to break into the homes, anyway. And pass a law that says that you can't prosecute burglars if they're committing burglary on a government contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Larry, not to be a dick, but you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the costs of litigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.