Redskins Diehard Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 The White House and Congress today reached a deal on the most comprehensive overhaul of the nation's intelligence surveillance laws in 30 years. It would provide potential retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that previously cooperated with the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program and extend government surveillance powers. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/19/AR2008061901545.html?hpid=topnews ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Breaking News. Congress is full of ******* and slackers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted June 19, 2008 Author Share Posted June 19, 2008 So can we now say that it isn't Bush trampling on the Constitution but instead the Executive and Legislative Branches? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Wow. The Post article is two pages long. And mentions virtually nothing about what's actually in the bill. Motion is made that Tailgate debate this issue in complete ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsOrlando Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 ^^^ already started Larry, you posted. I thought the Dems were gonna bring justice and ethics back :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Wow. The Post article is two pages long. And mentions virtually nothing about what's actually in the bill. Motion is made that Tailgate debate this issue in complete ignorance. I second the motion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 ^^^ already started Larry, you posted.I thought the Dems were gonna bring justice and ethics back :laugh: so did the rest of us. I'm ashamed of how the Democrats in Congress have acted since elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Wow. The Post article is two pages long. And mentions virtually nothing about what's actually in the bill. Motion is made that Tailgate debate this issue in complete ignorance. Come on the ACLU doesn't like it. What else do you need to know? In their defense, they did include: "The proposal would give retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that can show the court that they received assurances from government officials that the program was legal and that they have "substantial evidence" in the form of classified letters from authorities to support their position." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted June 19, 2008 Author Share Posted June 19, 2008 Wow. The Post article is two pages long. And mentions virtually nothing about what's actually in the bill. Motion is made that Tailgate debate this issue in complete ignorance. A key element of the new plan would give U.S. district courts the chance to evaluate whether telecommunications companies deserve retroactive protection from lawsuits. The proposal would give retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that can show the court that they received assurances from government officials that the program was legal and that they have "substantial evidence" in the form of classified letters from authorities to support their position. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ One of the issues is(as it has been) the issue of immunity. Now here is a suggestion...how about the members of the tailgate contribute some facts about the bill so that we can debate it intelligently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 According to one of the briefs filed by the ACLU, the White House was attempting to compile a registry of ALL phone calls made inside the United States. Part of their suit against AT&T alleged that AT&T planned to provide a site to the feds that would allow them to monitor the entire network, without ANY oversight. I must say that in this case, my support is 100% behind the ACLU. And I'm throroughly disgusted that Congress, be it republican- or democrat-controlled could give half a **** about my Constitutional rights. That's almost as criminal as the administration that violated them in the first place. As I asked TLC last night, who is looking out for us? Anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted June 19, 2008 Author Share Posted June 19, 2008 According to one of the briefs filed by the ACLU, the White House was attempting to compile a registry of ALL phone calls made inside the United States. Part of their suit against AT&T alleged that AT&T planned to provide a site to the feds that would allow them to monitor the entire network, without ANY oversight.I must say that in this case, my support is 100% behind the ACLU. And I'm throroughly disgusted that Congress, be it republican- or democrat-controlled could give half a **** about my Constitutional rights. That's almost as criminal as the administration that violated them in the first place. As I asked TLC last night, who is looking out for us? Anyone? How were your Constitutional rights violated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 How were your Constitutional rights violated? 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. If what was said above is the case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted June 19, 2008 Author Share Posted June 19, 2008 If what was said above is the case Did that happen to you? Did it happen to him? Who has it happened to? You people think the government, the administration, gives a s*** about who you are talking to an what you are talking about. You are delusional Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 How were your Constitutional rights violated? I couldn't have said it better than brikem just did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 You are delusional And you're a classy and skilled debator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Frankly, that's a LOT more important to me than telco immunity. (To me, the telco suit is mostly a fishing expedition: A way to find out how much the government has been dredging.) What I'm concerned about is, does 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. still exist? If the government has to get a warrant, and if the warrant is required to be specific and narrow, and if all monitoring requires it (not "well, they need a warrant to listen, but it's OK if they just vacuum up all the billing records of everybody in the world"), then I'm cool. If, OTOH, the government is threatening government punishment against any telco who fails to 'voluntarily' hand over the keys to the shop, then I've got a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted June 19, 2008 Author Share Posted June 19, 2008 And you're a classy and skilled debator. Thank you. And you are the smartest guy I know also Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Did that happen to you? Did it happen to him? Who has it happened to? You people think the government, the administration, gives a s*** about who you are talking to an what you are talking about. You are delusional Well, I used the phone a few times between 2001 and 2008 and if the Bush administration attempted to gain access to those phone calls without a warrant that would be in violation of the 4th amendment. Think of it like the cops attempting to kick your door down to search your home without a warrant, but you have a really strong door so they couldn't do it so they left to think up a new plan. Just because they didn't succeed doesn't make it ok to do.PLUS, it goes even farther than the administration originally stated when they said that the program only monitored calls in which one end of the conversation took place outside the United States. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Thank you. And you are the smartest guy I know also I think our posts in this thread more than speak for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Well, at least Larry prefaced the tailgate debate as one with very little facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted June 19, 2008 Author Share Posted June 19, 2008 Well, I used the phone a few times between 2001 and 2008 and if the Bush administration attempted to gain access to those phone calls without a warrant that would be in violation of the 4th amendment. Think of it like the cops attempting to kick your door down to search your home without a warrant, but you have a really strong door so they couldn't do it so they left to think up a new plan. Just because they didn't succeed doesn't make it ok to do.PLUS, it goes even farther than the administration originally stated when they said that the program only monitored calls in which one end of the conversation took place outside the United States. Well I would offer for consideration that the government really has no use for your phone calls and your Constitutional rights were not infringed upon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Did that happen to you? Did it happen to him? Who has it happened to? You people think the government, the administration, gives a s*** about who you are talking to an what you are talking about. You are delusional And if you think that the government ignoring the Constitution is OK as long as it's Classified, then you're a coward and a Traitor. Now that we've got the name calling out of the way, could we maybe consider, in grand Tailgate tradition, discussing the issue (in mutual ignorance) politely? (OK, so maybe it's not a tradition.) For example, could you actually state your position on the issue? Are you claiming that, IYO, the government never collected data on the phone calls on every person in America? Or is it that you're simply choosing to claim that if the government won't admit that it happened, then there's something wrong with citizens trying to find out? It would make it so much easier for me to point out how wrong you are if you'd actually state which wrong position you're supporting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted June 19, 2008 Author Share Posted June 19, 2008 I think our posts in this thread more than speak for themselves. They tell me that you are one of the brightest minds America has to offer. You think that George Bush is monitoring, or ordering people to monitor, your phone call with TLC. I don't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Well I would offer for consideration that the government really has no use for your phone calls and your Constitutional rights were not infringed upon. The police have no use to kick in the front doors of upstanding citizens either. It's not what they find, or IF they even find anything. There are laws and procedures that must be adhered to when attempting to gain information that WILL be used in criminal prosecution. The moment you begin to erode those laws and procedures, we start the downhill slide toward becoming the old USSR. Look, RD, I was on your side in the beginning of this case. It took a lot of convincing from Larry and others (and the USPS signing statement that says the feds can open your mail any time they feel like it; without a warrant and without PC) to change my mind. I would respectfully suggest a little more listening, and a lot less namecalling. You just may see the validity of the other side of the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Well I would offer for consideration that the government really has no use for your phone calls and your Constitutional rights were not infringed upon.Well if they had no use for my phone calls why attempt to listen in on them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.