It’s Not Just The Telecom Portion Of The Spying Bill That Stinks
Obama should keep his word that he would fight that part of a FISA bill that lets off the hook telecoms that helped the Bush administration spy on Americans. MoveOn is leading the charge.
These companies helped the Bush Administration illegally spy on the emails and phone calls of innocent Americans. By giving “immunity” to these companies, all lawsuits brought against them by civil liberties groups would be thrown out of court. That means we may never find out how far Bush went in breaking the law. And once it’s done, it can’t be undone. That’s why we need Obama to promise to block any bill that has immunity.
But immunity for telecoms isn’t the only thing wrong with the bill. The Star-Ledger ennumerates some of the other probems with what BushCo wants to do, and will do, if aided by its Democratic congressional enablers:
The president also very much wants the other major part of the new wiretapping law, the section that amounts to an aggressive broadening of federal surveillance powers. The provisions would emasculate the ability of federal judges to review wiretapping orders, especially if the orders were for a general information “dragnet” as opposed to targeting specific persons.
Snooping government agents would be officially free to plug into phone and data lines and copy and review untold millions of calls and e-mails, all without serious adult supervision.
Immunity also gives Bush and the boys a wall to hide behind.
We may never know how far they’ve gone in violating the civil rights and the privacy of american citizens, not to mention the law itself.
June 22nd, 2008 at 5:16 pm
aw damn, now there’s now way of knowing if they listened in on your phone sex call. Because you know the people who work at the NSA have nothing else to do
June 22nd, 2008 at 5:32 pm
And everybody says, “I’ve got nothing to hide.”
But few people get caught with a smoking gun in their hand. So it really comes down to probable cause, and circumstantial evidence, and inferences drawn by law enforcement.
Your kid gets on the phone to talk to his friend about a movie they just saw. It’s about terrorists bombing the US. He says “terrorist” and “bomb” and other keywords enough times that some NSA computer starts paying attention. It was a really exciting movie so now he’s saying how awesome it was seeing all these explosions and all kinds of mayhem. The NSA computer can’t tell that your kid is 14 years old. Maybe the computer thinks it’s you, since the phone’s in your name.
The FBI runs a background check. They find out you own a gun. You’ve got a relative who was arrested for a felony. You ordered some books from Amazon about war. A guy at your job was investigated for money laundering, and the government lacked sufficient evidence to file charges, but that doesn’t mean he’s innocent.
They find out you live in the same town as a guy giving money to Islamic charities suspected of providing material support to terrorists. Your neighbor just up the block is on the Watch List. He told you it’s just confusion over his name. But it doesn’t matter who’s confused because his name’s still on the list.
They hack your household PCs. It’s no problem getting into your PCs because all consumer security software has backdoors built in for use by law enforcement. They find evidence of hacker software. You don’t even know it’s there, because your Norton Internet Security is two years out of date, and you were previously hacked and your PC briefly played a role in a denial of service attack against a phone company web site, along with several thousand other PCs from all around the world.
An FBI computer starts making calculations. It tallies a lot of factors that, taken individually, might not be so incriminating. But when you put it all together there’s a non-zero possibility of a sleeper extent cell in your town and maybe you’re part of it.
You go to a bar. Some guy named Joe you’ve seen there before and swapped jokes with introduces you to his friend Tom. You have a few drinks and the three of you start talking about how screwed up the government is and what a mess the administration’s made of the economy.
You have a great time solving the world’s problems and outside the bar you shake hands with Joe and Tom. Across the street is an unmarked van and the FBI just took your picture shaking hands with Tom, who’s suspected of visiting Al Qaeda training camps.
Another guy leaves the bar just after you. The FBI offered him cash if he gets anything on Tom. He tells his FBI controller you had a lot to say about the government, like that whole crowd in Washington needs to be cleaned out, and the sooner the better.
Now it’s serious. It could be a sleeper cell that’s recruiting or preparing to activate. The FBI picks up your garbage. When you put garbage out for pickup at the curb it’s legally considered abandoned property so they don’t even need a warrant. In the garbage they find a DVD your kid got from some kid at school. On the DVD is a collection of al Qaeda videos downloaded from YouTube. Your kid thought it was funny. You got mad when you found it and threw it away.
The FBI sends in their special ops team to go through your house when nobody’s home. They find a picture of you in the den from your last hunting trip. The picture shows you and two guys out somewhere in the woods. You’re all holding rifles and wearing camo. There’s no deer anywhere in the picture. Your brother-in-law’s a real comedian, and you were all pretty drunk, and just as a joke he got you and your uncle to tie bandanas over your faces.
The FBI doesn’t know what you’re thinking. They don’t care how many times you’ve said the Pledge. They don’t care if you served in the military, because Tim McVay served too.
What happens next? Maybe nothing. Maybe they knock on your door and invite you down to the local FBI office for a talk lasting several hours, where you try to explain how this is all an incredible misunderstanding. Maybe they bust down your door.
June 22nd, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Barak Heusien Obama;[has NEVER sponsored a bill]!
How; Will he change things!?
Oh; we will all learn to speak euboniks, and we will ‘G’dam Amerika!
Truly the liberal way!
June 22nd, 2008 at 6:21 pm
This tread SUCKS ! first you have to convince me the constitution does not allow the fisa bill to spy?
2nd who ever said its up to Obama to fight this?
is congress / senate scared of the bill?
is the bill out of control & loose from its cage?
June 22nd, 2008 at 7:25 pm
The Dems caving on the FISA bill brings out all the venom I can produce! These bums must be thrown out with the trash…like they are doing to our freedoms. The Republicans are so used to stone walling they can’t see the truth. And worse…Bush’s illegalities win!
June 22nd, 2008 at 7:28 pm
You have no freedom to conspire engaging in acts of war with people overseas on the phone.
June 22nd, 2008 at 8:10 pm
What if they are spying to find out who dares to
speak out against them?
What if you end up on a no fly list because you gave money to the “wrong party’?
What if you get rendered to another country because you read the wrong books?
Please spare me the “Prove to me that this has actually happened to a law abiding citizen….”
If it does happen, it’s already too late!
June 22nd, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but-
if I own a business and the government tells me that I have to do something because it’s a federal law, am I not obligated to obey that law?
Maybe I’m missing something, bc everyone else is upset and I’m not. I’m not being sarcastic, I’m totally serious. Why are we mad at the phone companies for obeying a law the govt said they HAD to obey? Shouldn’t our anger be directed at the govt?
June 22nd, 2008 at 11:54 pm
I have nothing to hide on my cell phone and I doubt anyone want to tap it as I rarely use it. I do not even know how to use text messaging. They can have all my email spam though free.
Oh I can go around on internet sites old archives easy. I visit internet sites that have archives of court and vital records. Oh yeah I am also one of those odd balls who save newspaper articles and videos of what maybe historic or important momemts. For some strange reason I still have able 16 tapes from the 2000 election.
June 22nd, 2008 at 11:55 pm
To answer Cheryl question, yes business owners have to obey federal, state, and local laws.
The phone companies had to obey the laws. Just as your employer has to obey the law by paying you so much per hour, feeding you every so often, giving you a break, and making sure other rules are not broken.
June 22nd, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Bush and the Boys don’t have a wall to hide behind. We all know they violated the Constitution under the vail of protecting the United States from an unknown threat. All they have is “The Unknown Threat” and the fear of failure that permits another one. Here’s the problem. They violated the Constitution and we don’t know how much they knew in advance of the 9-11 attack. We know that Bush was “Swatting Flies”, but Scott McClellan just said, “They never stopped playing politics.” Who is the Bush Fly? Democrats know and Bush knows because he spied domestically. America doesn’t know and if the truth came out someone could get impeached. The threat of another attack is real. We need to be careful and he’s almost done. Sometimes, a “Do Nothing Congress” is exactly what we need.
June 23rd, 2008 at 12:06 am
Thanks for the info, From.
I guess I’ve been out of the loop. Here’s one of the articles that I used to catch me up on this story… that broke three years ago… in my defense, that was my first year of motherhood. I barely survived it. Please excuse my ignorance, lol.
http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2005/12/20/spying/index.html
June 23rd, 2008 at 12:17 am
Oh, and in my opinion if the companies didn’t know they were acting illegally (eg., the govt gave them official paperwork saying that they had to comply) then they should NOT be held accountable.
June 23rd, 2008 at 12:25 am
RC~ I’ve been skipping over your comment bc I thought it was another message from JDP. I didn’t even notice that it was broken into paragraphs until I was scrolling back up the page.
Anyway, interesting scenario. Is this your way of saying that you do not support the PATRIOT ACT and wiretapping?
June 23rd, 2008 at 12:30 am
Damn. George Carlin is dead. That sucks, man.
June 23rd, 2008 at 1:20 am
I got started typing and couldn’t stop.
I believe in checks and balances. I believe in the constitution and the bill of rights. I believe in the rule of law.
And I believe that if we give the executive branch total power to “protect” us the FBI will become the KGB and we might as well be living in the USSR.
Why did our government drop all charges against the alleged 20th hijacker? Because that trial would have put this administration and its methods on trial. Because presidential pardons are meaningless beyond the borders of the United States. Because certain people in the administration are worried they’ll be subject to arrest outside of the United States for crimes against humanity.
June 23rd, 2008 at 1:33 am
Obama won’t oppose this for the very reason that Republicans should be – in less than a year he could be the one benefiting from the power.
June 23rd, 2008 at 2:40 am
I don’t now if going after the companies is fair either. Alan, et al, seem to be contending that they had a moral obligation to incur the risks of defiance, and that immunity limits or prohibits discovery. Both are understandable.
June 23rd, 2008 at 4:22 am
Vince, good job on furthering the worsening credibility of conservatives on the Constitution and the principles therein.
June 23rd, 2008 at 4:26 am
Immunity from what? From being sued or from being found guilty of something…big difference. If the TelComs did nothing wrong then what do they have to fear? A lawsuit would just give them a forum to explain their innocence, wouldn’t it?
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:50 am
Budda said,
“If the TelComs did nothing wrong then what do they have to fear? A lawsuit would just give them a forum to explain their innocence, wouldn’t it?”
……………
I agree, but I think that the reason that the Bush administration wants them to have immunity is because they don’t want it to come out in a lawsuit that THEY told the telecoms to break the law.
June 23rd, 2008 at 8:06 am
WFG: Good job at adhering to the clonish template those on the Left follow by your use unsubstantiated assertions mixed with character assassination.
June 23rd, 2008 at 8:06 am
Reference your dismissive first post, which ignores principle in favor of mockery.
June 23rd, 2008 at 8:09 am
jerrysrollin said:
“Barak Heusien Obama;[has NEVER sponsored a bill]!
How; Will he change things!?
Oh; we will all learn to speak euboniks, and we will ‘G’dam Amerika!
Truly the liberal way”
…………………………
Why do I get the feeling that this guy is one of those who will get the vapors if you call him racist?
Obama sponsored 63 bills in the 110th congress, But don’t let the facts get in the way!
Why talk about bills when you can trash talk about
ebonics??
Did you ever HEAR Barack Obama speak??
June 23rd, 2008 at 8:40 am
WFG: Nice attempt at the child-like “you did it too” defense.
However,my statement you reference was using mocking sarcasm.
You made a sincere statement.
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:16 am
Sarcasm doesn’t preclude criticism. The phone sex part was, albeit, a joke, but the assertion of improbability as to what the NSA would do is secondary to the question of the propriety of them being able to commit an abuse in the first place.
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:39 am
The abuses of illegal wiretaps are well documented. Cheryl…some telecons went along with whatever assuarances they were given…we’ll never know what those were if the Bill passes. Others legal offices knew they were violating the law and did not allow the taps. Recall ignorance of the law is no excuse! Were the conservatives on this blog correct that what was being tapped was US users conspiring with foreign terrorists there would be little excitment as FISA has turned down less than 10 requests since it began. But widepread listening to pick up general data looking for key words or phrases, or general trends of where one makes calls, without some specific hint that one’s behavior may be illegal, is all about abandoning one of our most important protections under the Bill of Rights…privacy! We all one a safe America…it is quite possible to have it without losing our rights. The Bushies knew that and persisted in breaking the law anyway knowing full well they could use fear to justify the unjustifiable. The Pres and his cronies on this nead a barred sun tan…they are plain and simple crooks even if they give patriotic motives!
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:43 am
Tom Hanna said: “Obama won’t oppose this for the very reason that Republicans should be – in less than a year he could be the one benefiting from the power.”
Very interesting thought, Tom. I don’t know that I agree or disagree with it, but it’s quite thought provoking.
Budda makes a very interesting point. I haven’t read any articles that state whether the companies knew that they were doing was wrong.
This is so frustrating… where is the evidence? If the companies want to defend themselves to the public, and they have documents showing they were told they had to do this, shouldn’t they have brought those forward by now?
Jerry… you’ve been so good lately! Why’d you have to go and start stereotyping again?
Spyglass~ Thanks for the info, man.
June 23rd, 2008 at 11:55 am
Qwest asked the Bush/Cheney family “where’s the warrant”. The owner of Qwest is now sitting in jail on trumped up charges.
On the one hand, I can’t blame the telecom companies for caving into Bush out of fear, but on the other hand, I don’t want them to get away with this s#$t.
June 23rd, 2008 at 2:08 pm