Michael Goldfarb has the better title, but as the battle over the expired eavesdropping law moves toward a conclusion giving phone companies legal protection from lawsuits for cooperating with the government after 9/11, the reaction of Rick Ellensburg is revealing:
There’s very little point anymore in writing about how the Congressional Democratic leadership is complicit in all of the worst Bush abuses, or about how craven they are. All of that is far too documented and established at this point to be worth spending any time discussing. They were never going to take a stand against warrantless eavesdropping or the destruction of the rule of law via telecom amnesty for one simple reason: many of them don’t actually oppose those things, and many who claim to oppose them don’t actually care about any of it. That’s all a given.
But what is somewhat baffling in all of this is just how politically stupid and self-destructive their behavior is. If the plan all along was to give Bush everything he wanted, as it obviously was, why not just do it at the beginning? Instead, they picked a very dramatic fight that received substantial media attention. They exposed their freshmen and other swing-district members to attack ads. They caused their base and their allies to spend substantial energy and resources defending them from these attacks.
Ellensburg has previously cast Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as part of the vast conspiracy to enslave the American people.
What is new is the whining over Democrats causing “their base and their allies to spend substantial energy and resources” defending them from these attacks. Perhaps Ellensberg is alluding to the fundraising he did related to the issue without telling his readers. Or perhaps he is thinking about the time he has wasted typing screed after screed after overwrought screed on the topic.ÂÂ
Either way, when one reaches the bottom of Ellensburg’s barrel, it is ultimately all about him. And Ellison. And Thomas Ellers. And Ryan. And Wilson.
For me, it has everything to do with getting to discovery, so we can find out what our government was doing. I understand, on the other hand, after reading your increasing hateful screed toward Mr. Greenwald, that this is personal for more than person.
After all, your FISA posts are generally no more in-depth than partisan hackery. You ignore portions of the PAA which immunize telecoms for future conduct, the fact that a federal judge found a prima facie case, the fact that a whistleblower from AT&T demonstrated the extent of the NSA’s spying, and the fact that telecom immunity and wire-tapping are NOT related, except in the fever swamp that is the right wing in America.
I understand the ideological differences with the GG, Karl.
I even understand your dislike to GG. That’s fine.
But why so much love for the government and it’s secret programs ?
barryL,
What these events make clear is that there is a bipartisan consensus for the amendments and for telco immunity.
That makes you the partisan hack, who wants to risk revealing intelligence methods — and the national security — to satsify your BDS.
sashal
Ever hear of the Enigma program?
yes, I did. And have the same attitude towards that as well…
This is the reason we advocate for a strong Constitution, sashal. I understand your paranoia, given your background, but we have found that good intelligence is essential to self-preservation. The way this works is we grant the government a bit of latitude in acquiring this, but strictly limit its use with the Constitution.
I hear what you’re saying, B.Moe.
First:
never, ever trust the government and bureaucrat.
Second:
the constitution may not be the strong enough safeguard, if all branches of government think and behave the same….
As long as you’re vilifying ‘narcissism’, don’t single one soul out.
We could all do a mea culpa.
As to the substantive issue………………………..
“giving phone companies legal protection from lawsuits for cooperating with the government”
You need to catch up, Karl.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_03/013236.php
Regards.
Semanticleo-(another partisan hack.)
Except they don’t.
It is a catch 22, sashal. If you don’t trust the government you have, you will soon lose it. The next one likely won’t give us the option.
Obviously some of this stuff is guesswork….
Except for ‘cleo, who obviously isn’t really even sure what it says.
Rob C. Up until 2006 they did.
“yes, I did. And have the same attitude towards that as well…” For real, sashal? You object to the policy of strict secrecy clamped down over the breaking of the Enigma cipher? Do you think that was purely a matter of “government and bureaucrat” doing just doing what comes naturally to them? Have you heard of something called the XX Committee? How about Fortitude? Fellow with the odd designation “Garbo,” perhaps?
And we haven’t even got round to Purple and Magic – think Friedman’s decorations ought to be revoked, maybe? Somewhere in the great beyond, Henry L. Stimson is beaming broadly at you, sashal.
war on terror Barry. war on terror. So far Bush hasn’t done anything compared to FDR, Wilson, and Lincoln.
Comment by sashal on 3/3 @ 7:05 pm #
I hear what you’re saying, B.Moe.
First:
never, ever trust the government and bureaucrat.
Second:
the constitution may not be the strong enough safeguard, if all branches of government think and behave the same…
It’s why we got guns. The second amendmendment isn’t about hunting.
Sashal;
Don’t let them take you too far afield. They want to stay off the subject as much as possible. They are running out of excuses to keep the dirty secret under cover.
you got me there, Pendagon.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
So mr.H.L.Stimson can continue to beam broadly at me….
They want to stay off the subject as much as possible. They are running out of excuses to keep the dirty secret under cover.
No, ‘cleo, it has been pretty much the same basic one all along: We don’t want ignorant pinheads like you telling our enemies what we are doing. Or punishing the people who are helping us.
Sashal, you may want to weigh Semanticleo’s advice against her shock on discovering (via this forum, some time back) that the American Lend/Lease Policy actually provided a considerable degree of assistance material and moral to your former nation during that whole 1939-1945 business. Clued in, that one is. Frighteningly so.
“Or punishing the people who are helping us.”
Woe is Moe. “indemnification” will bring you up to date.
For me, it has everything to do with getting to discovery, so we can find out what our government was doing.
You were sooooo close to telling the truth there. Had you just said it was about exposing the US intelligence apparatus, you would feel better right now.
They are running out of excuses to keep the dirty secret under cover.
Allahdammit. Those crooked bastards running Congress are tools of the Chimperor. Damn neocons are in the admin’s pocket.
Doesn’t gleenwald’s comment suggest that they spent time backing the Dem position only because it was the Dem position, rather than a principled position?
And Sashal, having some awareness of the vital ways in which breaking Enigma (and keeping the intelligence gained secret at all costs) helped to save lives on both sides and led to significant victories in WWII (ditto for Purple -look into the significance of the letters “AF” in regard to the Battle of Midway), which could be demonstrated by a mere google of the terms provided, might possibly lead you to reconsider your original statement. Or not. But it’s worth it. At least trouble yourself to look up Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson, because you’re his modern-day acolyte without realizing it.
By the way, cleo, how do you square a punitive lawsuit with your new bestest friend “indemnification”? Because it seems to kind of fuck that all up.
cleo, how do you square a punitive lawsuit
With Cleo’s Compass.
Pendragon, again if there is information you would like to share, please do.
But so far I am not aware of any programs of the USA government , that would let them monitor the communications by breaking the existing law, which happened during Bush admin. and FISA inconvenience.
As far as we all understand, the latest actions by the congress(PAA) were intended to adjust the FISA towards new requirements, which is fine.
But what it all means is that the government did break the law before…right?
“Indemnification” is not my friend, it is the friend of the Patriotic
TelComs who are ‘allegedly helping us” while they ask for immunity
UP FRONT so their stakeholders (those most precious, as opposed to the
American public) won’t have to cut down to Five Cubans per week in order to survive.
I see your # 21, P.
I will look it up…
“Comment by sashal on 3/3 @ 7:23 pm #
you got me there, Pendagon.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
So mr.H.L.Stimson can continue to beam broadly at me….”
Oy vey.
“Comment by Semanticleo on 3/3 @ 7:43 pm #
“Indemnification†is not my friend, it is the friend of the Patriotic
TelComs who are ‘allegedly helping us†while they ask for immunity
UP FRONT so their stakeholders (those most precious, as opposed to the
American public) won’t have to cut down to Five Cubans per week in order to survive.”
Curse you, Plutocrats!
[shakes tiny fist in anger]
How difficult is it for you folks to actually read a link?
I understand it is info that does not square with your iron=clad matrix, but perhaps you could suspend your sclerotic nerve pathways and,
READ……………………
“look into the significance of the letters “AF†in regard to the Battle of Midway”
Water water everywhere and not a drop to drink.
“Comment by Semanticleo on 3/3 @ 7:48 pm #
How difficult is it for you folks to actually read a link?”
How dificult is it for you to understand English?
@ #25 “Indemnification†is not my friend, it is the friend of the Patriotic
Indeed, Sem.
No, they didn’t. Minority party members of Congress are briefed along with the majority party.
Then there’s the natural tension between the legislative and executive.
But what it all means is that the government did break the law before…right?
Wrong. It means that even the Dems in Congress do not think that the companies should be subject to BS civil claims for helping the government.
I know, I should just beat my cranium against a brick wall, but I am really curious, so here goes …
Cleo – who do you suppose the stakeholders are? Why are stakeholders bad? Should some telecom lose a civil suit in Madison County IL, or Mississippi, who do you think will pay for it?
good catch, guinsPen.
“Should some telecom lose a civil suit in Madison County IL, or Mississippi, who do you think will pay for it?”
Why, that would be the customers, JD.
Oh Karl, that is beautiful
If the plan all along was to give Bush everything he wanted, as it obviously was, why not just do it at the beginning?
That’s precisely what they were going to do, until Dodd announced his filibuster plan. So the answer to why is….Glenn.
Surely a narcissist should be willing to look in the mirror.
Cleo – N.O’Brain beat you to it. Who will pay? The small guy, Joe Q citizen, the working man, the folks that the Dems claim to be fighting for, when in reality, they just piss on them. Who will benefit? Nobody other than the mass tort plaintiff bar.
JD.
In a letter to Congress late last week, the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA)  which represents groups such as Google and Microsoft  said that it “strongly†opposes retroactive immunity for firms that cooperated with the administration’s warrant-less wiretapping. CCIA President and CEO Edward Black writes:
CCIA dismisses with contempt the manufactured hysteria that industry will not aid the United States Government when the law is clear. As a representative of industry, I find that suggestion insulting. To imply that our industry would refuse assistance under established law is an affront to the civic integrity of businesses that have consistently cooperated unquestioningly with legal requests for information. This also conflates the separate questions of blanket retroactive immunity for violations of law, and prospective immunity, the latter of which we strongly support.
Pendragon.
Looked it up. Admirable man mr.Stimson was, to my shame I haven’t heard about him.
I could not see/find the connection between Enigma and contemporary law breaking of FISA …
Rules.
1. Don’t trust Government.
2. Somebody can afford better cigars than me.
3. Put Government in charge of cigar redistribution.
Or was I thinking of Lupines?
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore, galloping through the night.
Soon every Lupine in the land’ll be in his mighty hand.
He steals from the poooooor,
And gives to the riiiiiich?
Stupid bitch.
…
“You know, this redistribution of the wealth is a lot trickier than I thought.”
~ Monty Python FC ~
Sashal,
What law was broken?
“What law was broken?”
That’s what lawyers ask when their ethics are questioned.
Karl
Want to weigh in?
sashal – Why exactly should we care what Google and Microsoft think about the telecom industry’s actions? Google’s political leanings are well known, so to most, that is like sourcing your position to a Soros’ Media Matters article.
Still waiting on an answer, Miss KKKleo. How is that PRE traumatic stress syndrome doing these days?
No, that’s what responsible jurists ask when considering the merits of a case, something which cannot be determined unless one knows the charge.
Incidentally, that’s supposed to be one of our rights under law, to kwno the charges to be brought. The label “illegal” is continually bandied, and I want specifics.
I’m happy to accept your tacit admission, however, that you have no idea what the answer to the question is.
That’s what lawyers ask when their ethics are questioned.
And there’s a stock answer, I imagine.
Seeing as how they only talk to each other.
Said a fool whose mind was quite miniscule
As her ignorance reached a new pinnacle
“I don’t believe in astrology
It’s my ideology
But I’m a CLeo and CLeo’s are cynical.
Whhoooo!. Mr Limerick!
this applies to so many other issues with them as well. Iraq war funding comes immediately to mind.
For me, it has everything to do with getting to discovery, so we can find out what our government was doing.
I think the answer lies in that sentence. These people think that by having trial lawyers sue the telecom companies, it will magically lead to ChimpyMcHalliburton and other White House figures to be arrested or tried in court too. National security be damned.
And then they get all that done and still find no law has been broken.
No trials, no indictments, no revenge. Just bankrupted telcos ($7 trillion+; half the annual GDP in claimed damages already being claimed in pending civil cases) and astronomical long distance rates.
Oh, yeah, and a damaged, compromised National Security effort.
“These people think that by having trial lawyers sue the telecom companies, it will magically lead to ChimpyMcHalliburton and other White House figures to be arrested or tried in court too. National security be damned.”
Wheras the lawyers just want the filthy lucre.
So they can bribe more Democrats.
They did not make their base and their allies expend substantial energy and resources defending them. Their base and their allies blindly followed along, screeching the entire way, right on cue.
And, of course, the correct answer to Greeeeeeeeeenwald(s)’s question is: wishful thinking.
Y’know, that “glass half full/half empty” crap was invented by a disappointed optimist (there is no other kind) who was made cynical by the disappointment. A true pessimist looks at the glass and says delightedly, “Hey, there’s some beer here!” I commend the attitude to you.
A pessimist would have looked at the 2006 results and said, “Hmm. We have a thin majority, but it might not hold if we try anything too ambitious. If we’re careful, maybe we can do a few things.” Reid, Pelosi & Co., optimists all, said, “Oh, wow! We have a majority! We can do anything we want!”
But the districts that elected Democrats over Republicans to give Democrats their majority did not do so because they had mutated into moonbats, like werewolves at the full moon. A candidate espousing the full Pelosi/Greenwald agenda would not have been elected — and if the new Representatives and Senators didn’t know that (which they did) they would have been reminded by communications from their constituents once in office.
Which they were.
So moonbats everywhere were disappointed. Their wonderful plans, based on optimism, fell through, and like disappointed optimists (TINOK) everywhere they kvetch about it.
My heart bleeds.
Regards,
Ric
I can and did read your link, cleo. I also understood it and was able to ration the implications out to a logical conclusion. You, or one of your cohorts, essentially argued the other day that it didn’t matter if no laws had been broken, the telecoms should still be held accountable punitively for violating folks civil rights. According to your Theory of Indemnification, assuming that it isn’t just wishful thinking, all responsibility has been passed to the government and there won’t be any punishment at all to the telecoms. Any judgement will be paid by the taxpayers, the same people whose rights have allegedly been violated. Doesn’t make much sense, does it? Unless you are just trying to fuck up the system.
cleo,
Do I want to weigh in?
Why should I? You’re doing a magnificent job of placing yourself in the same lefty nutball fringe as Greenwald all by yourself. It’s one of the main reasons I like FISA posts. It brings the paranoid out in force.
Well, at least they got Rove indicted.
Pablo
Heh.
cleo links to Kevin Drum as if Drum was the Oracle.
If only. Should we link to Tom Maguire’s response to Drum’s piece, as if Maguire were the Oracle? Or should we let cleo stumble upon it himself?
Let’s assume for the minute that some law was broken by the telecom companies when they assisted the gov’t in wiretapping overseas callers.
Let’s further assume (although there is currently no actual evidence to this effect – only conjecture) that the gov’t contractually agreed to indemnify the telecoms for assisting the gov’t in this wiretapping of overseas callers.
Now comes the Congress, and it seeks to pass (with broad bipartisan support) a law that grants immunity retroactively to the telecoms.
Does this not indicate that the congress beleives that the violation of law was warranted and justifiable due to circumstances? Is this not the sort of thing we elect congress to decide?
And, supposing that authority is given on a going forward basis for telecoms to assist the gov’t but that a retroactive immunity is not passed (which seems to be the position the left wants to adopt) – the telecoms will not be “punished” for past actions as they will allegedly be indemnified and they will still legally be able to do what they were doing on a going forward basis.
Thus, I am confused as to what the issue is here? What is it that the left is attempting to accomplish here by opposing the retroactive immunity?
What is it that the left is attempting to accomplish here by opposing the retroactive immunity?
Exposing our intel apparatus to our enemies. That is pretty much the only motivation left.
What is it that the left is attempting to accomplish here by opposing the retroactive immunity?
It allows them keep the issue that they want to focus on, that of the nefarious wrongdoing of the Republicans and their attempt to spy on all good Americans in the public eye. They can frame the issue however they want since the nature of the program is such that the Republicans could only put an end to it by revealing details of a classified program, which the left knows they won’t.
The only “defense” available to the right on this one is to paint the left as playing a dangerous game with national security, which happens to be true.
The Democratic leadership is milking the issue for as long as they think they can gain political advantage from it. You will notice that no charges have been filed due to the supposed illegal activities on the part of the telcos or the government. It’s political theater at its “best” during an election year.
To RTO: Specifically, the Stored Communications Act and also the original FISA Act itself, which is why, as I’ve mentioned before, the federal judge handling the class action suit brought by a NON-PROFIT group denied the telecom motion for summary judgment (because if’n they didn’t have case the fancy law-talking guy would have booted it).
If you can follow a link, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has an entire FAQ section re its lawsuit: http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/att/faq.php#1
I mean, granted, it’s not as effective as reading about Karl’s “writings” on the subject (thin-skinned to criticism as well), but it actually answers facts about the case from…oh, if you can handle it, the opposing side.
Rather than defend themselves from lawsuits, though, the telecoms paid another group of lawyers to lobby another group of lawyers (the Congress) to win the battle they did not want to fight against citizens and non-profit lawyers….ahh, free enterprise.
Big hat-tip to Jamie Gorelick, much-reviled on the Right for daring to question our wonderful President when she was on the 9/11 Commission, she has now rehabilitated herself by being the telecom industry’s greatest lobbyist and winning over Senator Rockerfeller with generous contributions.
Makes you wonder how we find out about what happens in this country: when citizens can’t sue institutions due to lobbyists passing rules and then those lobbyists get to sit in judgment of the government they lobby when something terrible happens? Ah, questions are for moonbats. We know the answer! The terrorists are under the bed emailing each other and we have to find them!
I look forward to the new Church Committee hearing in 2015 or so. I hope you old white guys are still around, so I can read your impotent rage at “exposing intelligence operations.” Should be a lot of fun.
“Makes you wonder how we find out about what happens in this country: when citizens can’t sue institutions due to lobbyists passing rules and then those lobbyists get to sit in judgment of the government they lobby when something terrible happens? Ah, questions are for moonbats. We know the answer! The terrorists are under the bed emailing each other and we have to find them!”
Ahh, I see now. Lawsuits are the highest form of patriotism and good governance. No wonder the trial lawyers love dems/liberals so much. Sue!! Sue!! Sue!! That’s the way. Better government through lawsuits. Better society through lawsuits. Better everything through lawsuits. Lawyers, judges and the 12 most ignorant people you can find are the best thing society has to determine policy.
And the fact that the civil lawsuit survived summary judgment is not quite the dispositive you claim it to be. 1) unfortunately, plenty of meritless lawsuits survive summary judgment and 2) plenty of denials of summary judgment are overturned on appeal.
Thus, at best we can say that one judge believed that there was enough of a question so as to let the case go forward. Which hardly proves anything one way or the other.
“We know the answer! The terrorists are under the bed emailing each other and we have to find them!”
That would have a better chance of being effective if you hadn’t just spent four paragraphs explaining how the terrorists are in our own government, lobbying one another under the covers.
A really slim chance, but better than nothing.
Great Banana, I returned to see the bunk. I was struck at your response. Was Brown v Board of Education not a lawsuit? Was EVERYTHING done by the NAACP in the 50’s and 60’s not done via lawsuit? Until the Federal Govt decided to address these issues via legislation, then yes, “sue, sue, sue” was the way to maintain one’s rights.
When one branch of government violates (allegedly) the law and another refuses to act, you maintain it is wrong for citizens to petition the third branch to redress grievances?
This paragraph is particularly absurd. Ever wondered what career Jefferson, Madison, or Adams chose? Lawsuits are fine way to demand from government what is necessary from it, all the way back to freakin’ Pericles.
I particularly enjoy your respect for juries. You are a smart guy, who knows his rights are safe in the hands of a President who needs to tell you only what you need to know. Don’t worry, Great Bananas, we have always been at war with EastAsia. George and Hillary and John and Barack will take care of you and, unlike your Founders, you do not need to worry about those in power.
18 USC 2701 et seq and 50 USC 1801 et seq do not apply. Both statutes are overtaken by the US Constitution, specifically Article II, and precedent.
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 363 (1967)
In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (Foreign Intel. Surv. Ct. of Rev. 2002)
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004)
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635-38 (1952)
United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 319 (1936)
The Prize Cases, 67 U.S. (2 Black) 635, 668 (1863)
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 527 (1988)
Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 788 (1950)
Chicago & S. Air Lines v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 111 (1948)
Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. 105, 106 (1876)
United States v. United States District Court, 444 F.2d 651, 669-71 (6th Cir. 1971)
Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 28 (1942)
Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19, 27 (D.C. Cir. 2000)
Training of British Flying Students in the United States, 40 Op. Att’y Gen. 58, 61 (1941)
IJS, What takes precedence, a statute or the Constitution?
“This paragraph is particularly absurd. Ever wondered what career Jefferson, Madison, or Adams chose? Lawsuits are fine way to demand from government what is necessary from it, all the way back to freakin’ Pericles.
I particularly enjoy your respect for juries. You are a smart guy, who knows his rights are safe in the hands of a President who needs to tell you only what you need to know. Don’t worry, Great Bananas, we have always been at war with EastAsia. George and Hillary and John and Barack will take care of you and, unlike your Founders, you do not need to worry about those in power.”
First, I am an attorney who practices civil litigation. So, my respect for juries is well earned. I’m pretty confident I know more about how juries are picked and how they actually make decisions then you, so I am pretty confident that I am correct in my opinion.
As to Jefferson, Madison, or Adams, they would likely be outraged over the current state of the legal profession and the attempts by the left to use litigation to set policy. Those guys would not recognize today’s legal profession nor would they want any part of it. they would be outraged at the activist judges who attempt to ursurp the power that resides in the peoples’ elected representatives. They would be outraged over the callous disregard for the constitution found on the left. So, your arguent is pretty funny.
You can point to one court case – Brown v. Board of Educ. for your position that litigation is the correct way to set policy. I can point to a million that demonstrate it is not. And, Brown v. Board is not such a strong case supporting your position anyhow (sure, emotionally the case feels right, but there is a pretty strong debate on whether Brown actually resulted in better or worse conditions for african-americans, and whether segregation would have been ended pretty soon thereafter through statutes and democractic policy decisions, which may have had a better outcome for today’s african american community).
Your belief that the answer to ever policy problem is a lawsuit is absolutely frightening. Do you believe in democracy at all? What is the point of us even having elected representatives, if you believe that the lawsuit is the answer to all our problems.
Should I be able to sue every time my taxes are raised – thereby violating my right to the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don’t see why not, stealing my hard-earned money to re-distribute it to someone else is certainly a violation of my rights. Why not let a judge and jury decide our tax policy?
As to whether everyting that the civil rights movement accomplished, most of it was not accomplished by lawsuit, but by the democratic process (i.e., elected representatives passing laws) and through changing peoples’ opinions (through marches, peaceful protests, the bus strike) which led to a change in laws and actions.
The idea that the civil rights movement was won via lawsuit is really, really foolish and anti-historical. Only a plaintiffs’ lawyer who really believes he/she is “nobel” for brining lawsuits would claim such a thing.
Well, as I listen to a civil lawyer here in the room tell me that all administrative law changes result in litigation to determine whether the adopted POLICY was determined properly, I have to disagree.
As an aside, you were obviously an attorney, no other profession can exude such arrogance in anonymous postings and no other profession can boast so many self-loathing members (I guessed defense counsel for an insurance company, given your appearance on a right-wing site, your presumption your audience lacks the knowledge you do, etc Today’s posting, featuring contempt for juries and “activist” judges is further credence to that supposition, but I know plenty of PI attorneys who hate themselves and their jobs. So, I still lean toward insurance counsel, but I’ll hedge my bet.)
After reading your post, it was clear that you didn’t need to admit being a trial lawyer. The way you attempted to ignore my point is classic smoke and mirrors. I maintained citizens whose right are not defended by a either the Executive or Legislative Branches have only one other branch to take their grievances.
As for Brown, I chose this alias on purpose. Marshall, as head of the NAACP’s legal committee, determined that only through federal litigation could the civil rights movement prevail and spent the 40’s and 50’s arguing before the Supreme Court. The NAACP continued his policies long after he started sitting on the Bench.
Concurrent with King and all throughout the 60’s, using the VRA and Civil Rights Acts, the Civil Rights movements advanced their cause almost exclusively by forcing the Federal govt to live up to its law and constitution.
But, I did enjoy the smoke and mirror, Atticus Finch. Bully for you.
RTO, the Stored Communications Act is from 1934. The FISA act is from 1978. If the telecoms would to present a facial challenge to them, I’m sure the Courts would no trouble directing to the Commerce Clause. Since the argument you have advocated as your own, RTO is one that deems it unnecessary for the government to obtain warrants to listen to a phone of an American citizen (originating overseas, of course…>), and the Fourth Amendment specifically calls from probable cause to get such a warrant in the first place, then I’m pretty sure you shouldn’t be basing your love of telecom immunity and warrantless wiretapping on the Constitution. It’s probably not your best argument.
Marchall and Banana, though, haver sure been nice enough to take this discussion off-topic. Thanks, boys
I’m convinced you haven’t understood my argument.
you were obviously an attorney, no other profession can exude such arrogance in anonymous postings and no other profession can boast so many self-loathing members (I guessed defense counsel for an insurance company, given your appearance on a right-wing site, your presumption your audience lacks the knowledge you do, etc Today’s posting, featuring contempt for juries and “activist†judges is further credence to that supposition, but I know plenty of PI attorneys who hate themselves and their jobs. So, I still lean toward insurance counsel, but I’ll hedge my bet.)
Wrong on both counts. I am defense attorney, but not for an insurance company. I generally defend municipalities in civil rights litigation, as well as discrimination litigation. I sometimes get involved in general tort claims, and have had numerous contract dispute cases, as well as spending several years defending in bogus multi-party toxic tort cases. I have done years of all kinds of adminsitrative law – hearings at every level as well as traditional labor work – negotiating contracts, etc. I was a JAG officer for the army. so, I have plenty of diverse experience, none of which is what you think it is.
Just because I believe that the litigation system in America is in disturbingly bad shape does not mean I am self loathing. I loath plaintiffs’ attorneys and groups like the ACLU, and much of the far-left (MoveOn, KOS, DU, CodePink). I don’t loath myself or my work.
I don’t think it is arrogant to believe america is over litigous, nor to think that policy should be decided by democracy rather than judges, and that judges should not make law. Please tell me how you disagree.
As to whether lawsuits are o.k. once the law is made and policy decided through the democratic process, I have no problem with that – although I believe we are way to litigous as a people and that there should be some consequence for filing meritless lawsuits, such as paying the other side’s attorneys fees.
What I argue against is the idea that somehow lawsuits should be the vehicle to set policy and make law, which is what the left is all about.
As to your other point – that the NAACP and Marshall used lawsuits to encforce people’s rights – that is correct. they used lawsuits to enforce individual’s rights under existing law. I am talking about using lawsuits to set policy and make law. Which is an entirely different thing, and a point you both ignore and use smoke and mirrors to attempt to avoid and pretend you have responded to.
Even so, equating the lawsuits of the 50’s and 60’s to enforce civil rights of individuals to today’s legal climate is just as arrogant and ignorant as all the various claims people make equating any of today’s cause celebre to the civil rights movement. Homosexual rights = the civil rights movement; overweight rights = the civil rights movement.
which brings me back to my original point, which was this:
Let’s assume for the minute that some law was broken by the telecom companies when they assisted the gov’t in wiretapping overseas callers.
Let’s further assume (although there is currently no actual evidence to this effect – only conjecture) that the gov’t contractually agreed to indemnify the telecoms for assisting the gov’t in this wiretapping of overseas callers.
Now comes the Congress, and it seeks to pass (with broad bipartisan support) a law that grants immunity retroactively to the telecoms.
Does this not indicate that the congress beleives that the violation of law was warranted and justifiable due to circumstances? Is this not the sort of thing we elect congress to decide?
And, supposing that authority is given on a going forward basis for telecoms to assist the gov’t but that a retroactive immunity is not passed (which seems to be the position the left wants to adopt) – the telecoms will not be “punished†for past actions as they will allegedly be indemnified and they will still legally be able to do what they were doing on a going forward basis.
Thus, I am confused as to what the issue is here? What is it that the left is attempting to accomplish here by opposing the retroactive immunity?
So, to bring us back on to topic, what is your answer to my original question?