Immunity for Telecoms

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by tomahawk, Feb 13, 2008.

  1. What does everybody think of the legislation currently before the congress on this issue?

    Personally I'm disgusted that the administration pressures these companies into violating the constitution, then tries to justify this immunity bill by saying "if they're subject to being sued then they'll never be willing to help us in the war on terror again..." .

    Well guess what ... if you encouraged them to violate people's constitutional rights by setting these wiretaps or whatever (and let's let the courts decide their liability through these lawsuits) - then you suffer the consequences of potentially being denied their help in the future. Think twice next time before involving other parties in your trashing of the Constitution.

    And let's not kid ourselves about the fact that the telecom lobby is likely a major factor in the government's selective protection here.
  2. Despicable. Unconstitutional. Illegal.
  3. Let's leave aside the question of constitutionality of the intercepts. I think a very good case can be made that they were perfectly legal. Instead, let's focus on the companies. WTF were they supposed to do when the government came to them after 9/11 and said we need your help in monitoring terrorist calls from overseas? Say, oh no, we prefer to risk another 9/11 rather than annoy some ACLU dickheads?

    Under the circumstances, they were right to assist the government and it would be outrageous to hang them out to dry now for political reasons.

    The fact that liberals cannot see this is just another example of why they can't be trusted with the nation's security.
  4. seker2k


    I am for strictly following the constitution, so I am 110% against the government spying on it's citizens, and even worse giving a private corporation immunity.

    I am for stripping down the federal governments powers drastically.

    Getting rid of income taxes, and the (not)federal reserve bank.

    Pull back the empire, and have true free markets, as opposed to monopolistic capitalism.
  5. It was a dragnet operation.

    That goes against everything this Country stands for.

    The Telcos should have followed Qwest & T-Mobile (who made it through unscathed), and refused barring a warrant.

    The Government should have pursued warrants through legal means (FISA) had they evidence against citizens. Did they? No. Because they had no evidence!

    It was a fishing expedition. And rightly struck down as unconstitutional.

    A couple other points. This isn't a Liberal versus Neocon issue.

    Im a Constitutionalist and strongly oppose any unwarranted Government spying.
  6. btw.

    This was a wholesale datadump of EVERY CALL MADE on participating carriers - domestic or international.

    The whole Spirit of the 4 Amendment was designed to thwart this kind of wanton Government surveillance.
  7. This is a tough one, not a lib vs. con absolute in my opinion. Yes, we all grew up watching even Superman and Perry Mason, the originals, when the police would ask for phone records, or seen placing a wiretap of some sort. We would root for the good guys, right? And, of course, we love the CIA movies where they pretty much get away with anything in the name of American security.

    The problem arises is when there is no line between good guys and bad guys. This has gotten worse in the last few years due to many issues, not just the Administration bashing. Things like Gitmo, finally we charge someone, what would we do if our citizens were held that long? I'm not a fan of the ACLU, but I actually am glad that they exist. Sort of a checks and balances.

    Now, giving full pardons to corporations is a logical outgrowth of scenerio number one, good guys, but not necessarily for the potential of FISA rule breaking.

    Tough one.

  8. seker2k


    A prime example of why we are in this mess is foreign meddling.

    Example, many Americans don't even know the true history of UK/US meddling in the internal affairs of IRAN.

    • Britain and the Soviet Union invade western Iran to counter the threat of expanding Nazi influence <---uh huh, ok.

    • Mohammed Mossadegh, an ultranationalist, is elected prime minister, under the shah. He angers the British by trying to nationalize the oil industry. <---not cool, that oil rightfully belongs to britain, right?

    • American and British intelligence services overthrow Mossadegh. The coup consolidates power under the shah, ensuring cooperation on oil <---cheap oil and a ghestapo like police force to brutilize the Iranian citizenry

    • The Iranian revolution forces the shah to leave. A month later, he is allowed into the United States for cancer treatment in New York City<--poor little Shah

    Keep in mind this article is from an MSM source that lied us int othe Iraq war, the new your times, and like any MSM news source will censored and biased.

    The basic jist of it is imperial UK, then US used covert ops to grab Irans oil, and blowback ensued.

    The MSM then portrayed the US as the poor innocent victim of those crazy Iranians that wanted their oil profits for themselves.

    This of it this way, if the US was sittin on a crapload of oil and China proped up a dictator friendly to China here, and financed a KGB like operation that was dissapearing your family and friends, how would you react?
  9. So basically you're saying the iranians are better off living under a repressive dictatorship of fanatical religious extremeists straight out of the middle ages? Funny but all the iranians I know would disagree. They despise Jimmy Carter for turning their country over to this horror.
  10. Purchasing the rights to oil is not stealing it. Nationalizing it is stealing it. There will never be any unity that Obama is deviously promising when one side considers everything a theft that was purchased and everything legal when it is stolen. (sort of like the constant charge of Bush stealing the 00 election.) Oh, and I guess one could add the constant refrain that the rich have gotten rich on the backs of (or stolen) from the poor.
    #10     Feb 13, 2008