Robyn Blumner from the St. Petersburg Times
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/11/18/Opinion/In_the_US_of_A__we_ar.shtml
<excerpt>
The reason that the Bush administration wouldn't follow the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act and get a proper warrant, even from the
secret FISA court, is that the administration wanted access to huge
quantities of what was read, written and said over the nation's
communications channels. Warrants require some specificity and
individual suspicion. No court, not even the administration-friendly
FISA court, would have approved such a monstrous fishing expedition of
Americans' Internet habits.
The administration claims it wants telecom immunity from lawsuits
because those companies came to the nation's rescue during a national
emergency. Well, that might be true if the program lasted only a few
days or weeks after 9/11. But it has been years. The telecoms have
smart lawyers and knew this was illegal. Qwest Communications
reportedly wouldn't go along for that very reason.
No, the fight over immunity has to do with trying to keep the
startling breadth and invasiveness of this program from court review
.
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: We are all suspects now |
22 Nov 2007 02:35:56 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 17:22:40 -0800, John Lemke wrote:
Robyn Blumner from the St. Petersburg Times
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/11/18/Opinion/In_the_US_of_A__we_ar.shtml
<excerpt>
The reason that the Bush administration wouldn't follow the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act and get a proper warrant, even from the
secret FISA court, is that the administration wanted access to huge
quantities of what was read, written and said over the nation's
communications channels. Warrants require some specificity and
individual suspicion. No court, not even the administration-friendly
FISA court, would have approved such a monstrous fishing expedition of
Americans' Internet habits.
The administration claims it wants telecom immunity from lawsuits
because those companies came to the nation's rescue during a national
emergency. Well, that might be true if the program lasted only a few
days or weeks after 9/11. But it has been years. The telecoms have
smart lawyers and knew this was illegal. Qwest Communications
reportedly wouldn't go along for that very reason.
No, the fight over immunity has to do with trying to keep the
startling breadth and invasiveness of this program from court review
The telecomms don't just want immunity, they want it *retroactively*. I
sure hope Congress doesn't go along with that kind of nonsense, but I'm
afraid they will.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pers3id" |
|
| Title: Re: We are all suspects now |
22 Nov 2007 03:29:18 PM |
|
|
Woodswun <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in news:4745e82b$0$26096
$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 17:22:40 -0800, John Lemke wrote:
Robyn Blumner from the St. Petersburg Times
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/11/18/Opinion/In_the_US_of_A__we_ar.shtml
<excerpt>
The reason that the Bush administration wouldn't follow the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act and get a proper warrant, even from the
secret FISA court, is that the administration wanted access to huge
quantities of what was read, written and said over the nation's
communications channels. Warrants require some specificity and
individual suspicion. No court, not even the administration-friendly
FISA court, would have approved such a monstrous fishing expedition of
Americans' Internet habits.
The administration claims it wants telecom immunity from lawsuits
because those companies came to the nation's rescue during a national
emergency. Well, that might be true if the program lasted only a few
days or weeks after 9/11. But it has been years. The telecoms have
smart lawyers and knew this was illegal. Qwest Communications
reportedly wouldn't go along for that very reason.
No, the fight over immunity has to do with trying to keep the
startling breadth and invasiveness of this program from court review
The telecomms don't just want immunity, they want it *retroactively*. I
sure hope Congress doesn't go along with that kind of nonsense, but I'm
afraid they will.
Woods
Why would they need immunity ? Have they done something wrong ? This
almost seems like a confession from the Bush White House that they've
broken laws.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: We are all suspects now |
22 Nov 2007 04:50:51 PM |
|
|
Pers3id wrote:
Woodswun <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in news:4745e82b$0$26096
$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 17:22:40 -0800, John Lemke wrote:
Robyn Blumner from the St. Petersburg Times
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/11/18/Opinion/In_the_US_of_A__we_ar.shtml
<excerpt>
The reason that the Bush administration wouldn't follow the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act and get a proper warrant, even from the
secret FISA court, is that the administration wanted access to huge
quantities of what was read, written and said over the nation's
communications channels. Warrants require some specificity and
individual suspicion. No court, not even the administration-friendly
FISA court, would have approved such a monstrous fishing expedition of
Americans' Internet habits.
The administration claims it wants telecom immunity from lawsuits
because those companies came to the nation's rescue during a national
emergency. Well, that might be true if the program lasted only a few
days or weeks after 9/11. But it has been years. The telecoms have
smart lawyers and knew this was illegal. Qwest Communications
reportedly wouldn't go along for that very reason.
No, the fight over immunity has to do with trying to keep the
startling breadth and invasiveness of this program from court review
The telecomms don't just want immunity, they want it *retroactively*. I
sure hope Congress doesn't go along with that kind of nonsense, but I'm
afraid they will.
Woods
Why would they need immunity ? Have they done something wrong ? This
almost seems like a confession from the Bush White House that they've
broken laws.
Or that they's <gasp? lie?
From the Blumner piece:
In 2005, the president assured us that his surveillance program was
"consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution." It was a lie.
Otherwise, he wouldn't be so abjectly terrified by the dozens of
lawsuits the program has spawned.
Nobody in the White House would lie, would they? Or commit treason,
according to the definition of Bush 41.
See new thread.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
