Illegal surveillance is a felony.

[robinlynne]

Why is Harry Reid offering immunity to felons?
who have committed felonies on thousands if not millions of people, not just one.

[Fovea]

1. Treason never prospers.

For if it thrive, none dare call it treason.

[wtmusic]

2. RL would each individual tap constitute a separate count?

Just curious.

[EFerrari]

3. (You asked RL but I believe the answer is yes.) n/t

[wtmusic]

4. So there is mucho liability at stake here

and the lobbyists are working late hours getting their clients off the hook.

Chris Dodd, watch your back. :scared:

(thx for info)

[EFerrari]

5. You bet.

:scared:

[robinlynne]

12. and our dems are really working hard to pass this shit!

[robinlynne]

11. in my opinion, but I'm not a lawyer.

[Milo_Bloom]

6. I have questions about this...

I haven't read as much about this as I should, but my understanding is that the "immunity" being offered extends beyond the companies who did the tap, BUT also to bush and his cronies who ordered the illegal wiretap and THAT is my problem with the immunity.

I want to lay the assumptions I am operating under, please let me know if I have any of this wrong.

My understanding of the issue is that the government illegally ordered them to wiretap individuals and turn over phone records, contrary to current law. And they obeyed those orders without a proper warrant... is this correct?

If my understanding of the issue is correct, in all reality, the companies SHOULD get immunity from liability, since they could raise what appears to be an easy entrapment defense to any charges brough against them via the government and could escape personal liability for those tapped, since they were operating under color of authority.

For example, if a cop/fed jumps in the back of your car, flashes a badge and orders you to "Drive 100 MPH and follow that car" you can not be prosecuted for speeding, nor will you be directly liable for an ensuring accident that derives as a result of that action. HOWEVER, the cop/fed should be held liable for giving the order that never should have been given in the first place.

So, please... who is getting immunity under this? Just the companies or the government officials as well?

[wtmusic]

9. I don't believe "color of authority" is applicable

unless the telcos can show that they are "agents of a governmental power".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_color_of_authority

Typically COA applies to police officers following orders. In this case the telcos were clearly independent and capable of refusing the order (some did).

If a cop orders you to murder someone, are you off the hook?

[Milo_Bloom]

13. Yes, you may be.

If a cop orders you to murder someone, you may be off the hook, depending upon facts and circumstances. Now in this case, no murder was committed, so the threshold should be even lower.

This is why I am asking the question. If the immunity only protects the COMPANIES that performed the actions asked of them by government authorities, I am all for giving them immunity. HOWEVER, if the immunity extends beyond the companies and allows those who ordered the illegal taps to gain immunity, that is a different story entirely.

[robinlynne]

17. why would you give them immunity?

[Milo_Bloom]

19. Because of my personal understanding of the situation...

which is why I am asking for clarification from those with more knowledge, as my underlying assumption may be completely wrong.

My personal understanding of the situation is that government agents contacted these companies and demanded certain action and that these government agents were claiming to act with authority, ORDERING these companies to comply. Although the company "had the option" to fight, some companies will not/can not/should not necessarily be required to spend their money fighting what they may perceive to be a valid government order from a lawful authority. Given provisions in the patriot act/homeland security and pelthora of other laws passed post 9/11, it is not unreasonable for any company to be confused about the state of privacy as it exists today.

If the above is not the case, I will change my opinion 100%, but that is my current understanding.

Based on that, I do not feel a company/individual or otherwise should be liable for actions they took under orders from government officials. I feel the GOVERNMENT officials and thus the GOVERNMENT should be liable for the actions they requested of the companies that they knew/should have known were illegal.

[wtmusic]

20. If they are confused about the state of privacy

they should have consulted their own legal, who should have promptly pointed out FISA restrictions requiring a court order to wiretap.

The law is there for everyone to see, and they violated the privacy of millions in violation of that law. Regardless of who told whom to do what.

[Milo_Bloom]

22. Its just not that easy.

I wish it was.

First, you are asking them to spend money that shouldn't have to spend to "consult" their own legal, which, if you have ever dealt with lawyers, will NOT give you a straight answer. You get answers like, "probably" and "maybe". (I was a lawyer and let me tell you we are TRAINED to give wiggle answers). In the company I help run right now I was asked to take a matter I was 99.9% sure of to outside counsel for "advice". We got a "legal opinion" that was filled with maybe's, probably's and could be's and no definitive answer.

Second, there is more to consider than just "fighting the order". When you defy the government as a company, things can get really hard for you REALLY quickly. Suddenly you may be audited more than before... Suddenly things you took for granted aren't working the same way.


Just try and step out of the mode you are currently in and see it from the other perspective (not the government's) but the individuals in the company who ultimately make the decision. They are being approached by a federal authority and being ordered to take action. When you are not in it, you can stand on the outside and say, "they should be held liable for not wading through complicated law, seeing through wiggle answers from attorney's and standing up for something they aren't sure about", but the reality is when YOU are being threatened directly (whether it is an actual threat or a perceived one) you may reasonably follow the path of least resistance and obey the "authority" who is giving what appears to be definitive information.

[wtmusic]

26. The law is not complicated at all

Neither FISA nor the PATRIOT Act allow wiretapping without a court order. It's that simple. The telcos caved to an illegal order and Americans paid the price. They should be held accountable.

[Milo_Bloom]

27. I am sorry, but you simply don't understand.

I know you believe it is cut and dry, but it isn't.

If you really want to find out, I suggest you create a mock telecom company and contact some law firms in your area and ask them the cost of researching this issue for you and then after you get through spending $100,000 on the legal fees, check out the answer you get. It will not be a simple yes/no, it will be a web of conflicting information which cuts both ways and suggests you MAY be right, but you may be incorrect as well.

Ya know what, let me give you the actual example I had to personally deal with.

My company (I am a 1/3 owner) was putting together a TV commercial and within that commercial we were using shots of buildings seen from the street. One of the other partners raised a concern that the owner of one of these very recognizable buildings could raise a copyright objection to our ad (one of the buildings was owned by a particular litigious organization). I (being an ex-attorney) researched copyright law and found a very clear and simple rule which stated that images of architechture IF VIEWABLE FROM A PUBLIC PLACE is NOT PROTECTED under copyright law. Simple, right? I copied the clear statue, e-mailed it to the other partners and thought the matter was closed.

However, the other 2 partners wanted outside legal advice (since I hadn't actually practiced law in over 7 years). So we hired one of the top firms in the country to give us a legal opinion letter. $20,000 WASTED later we have a letter that gives us a definate maybe. It cited the clear and concise statute and then gives several examples of people being sued and the very clear and concise statute being what appears to be ignored by the courts. In each case there are facts and circumstances where one can draw a distinction (IN case A they made the ad appear that the organization was endorsing the product and we aren't doing that) (IN case B the specific shot was from private property and not public property, so even though the building is viewable from public property, this specific image is not)... blah... blah... blah. In the end, the conclusion was that we were PROBABLY covered by the very clear an concise law; HOWEVER an actual lawsuit would cost 100,000 or more to fight and we are probably better off contacting these owners for permission (which they would NEVER give).

I wish we lived in a world where there were clear answers like the one you gave, but the reality is that even when the law is crystal freakin clear, the opinions of lawyers and the actual courts interpreting what you believe are crystal clear laws is often different.

[wtmusic]

29. I agree that intellectual property law sucks.

I was involved in an IP case for five years and nothing is cut-and-dried. It's a roll of the dice, and it has a lot more to do with how deep your pockets are than case law.

However...

This is apples/oranges. In this case, you are proactively wiretapping without a court order, which is a no-brainer. FISA explicitly prohibits it, and the telcos know this law frontward and backward. They were strongarmed by the Bush administration to commit an illegal act and they should have known better. There is no wiggle room here, nor should there be.

[Milo_Bloom]

31. Its NEVER a no brainer.

That is the reality. I had clear and concise black letter law and was told "maybe". The federal statutues in this area are NOT clear nor concise they contain numerous excpetions, contingencies and general contradictions.

I know you want to believe that there is some clear answer out there, but there isn't.

[wtmusic]

35. Well if the telcos are that stupid

then they get what is coming to them. They took the risk of giving away confidential information in (at least what you consider) a dubious circumstance, so may they get hit hard.

[Milo_Bloom]

38. Good luck the next time you are in a questionable circumstance.

I would love to be a fly on the wall the next time you find yourself in one of these "damned if you do, damned if you don't" moments, especially one as complicated as this one, where there is absolutely no definitive answer.

[wtmusic]

39. Thanks

They probably were in a tight spot, but when in doubt the prudent course would have been what the law clearly states, doncha think?

[Milo_Bloom]

41. Which law?

The written one or the one the government officials and probably your lawyers are telling you?

[robinlynne]

33. But do you think those trials should be squashed? Or should it go to court,

come out in the open, THEN decide who is guilty or not guilty. Felonies were committed. Congress suggests retro-actively legalizing everything that happened, instead of looking for the truth.

[Milo_Bloom]

42. They should go to court against the PROPER parties.

I don't believe in just dragging everyone into court, because court costs Hundreds of thousands if not MILLIONS of dollars and I don't believe a party who did as they were ORDERED under color of authority should be forced to spend millions of dollars defending themselves when it is ultimately the government who is responsible.

[wtmusic]

18. What is the basis for your opinion on the cop/murder scenario?

Seems farfetched, although I admit I don't know a damn thing about it.

[Milo_Bloom]

21. Its a facts/circumstances thing....

We can put together different examples where there would be liability and where there wouldn't.

Scenario A) Cop hands you a gun and points to a group of school-children. "Those kids are playing hookey and probably up to no good, I order you to kill them all"

Scenario B) You witness a cop being beaten by an individual. You run over, the individual runs off, the barely concious cop puts his gun in your hand and states, "The man has a bomb strapped to his chest and is going to blow up that school. I order you to shoot him NOW!"

In scenario A, you would obviously be liable, because even if everything were true, murder is not a sufficient justification for being "up to no good".

In scenario B, you would not be liable, because murder is a sufficient justification to prevent a mass murder and you could argue that given the facts and circumstances you reasonable believed that you were preventing the deaths of thousands of people by following the orders of the cop.



So I follow it through... in a post 9/11 world, is it that hard to believe that the government has the authority to order you to wiretap?

I freely admit I don't know all the facts and circusmtances, which is why I am asking this question and stating my underlying assumptions.

I currently run an internet company and I know that if the "government" came and under the color of the patriot act demanding certain action on my behalf, I may feel forced to comply, as we do not currently have the funds/ability to "fight the government", especially knowing that this same government could make our lives absolute HELL if they wanted.

[wtmusic]

24. I see problems in this.

In both scenarios A & B, whether the man is a cop or not is irrelevant (if anyone caused you to reasonably believe the man had a bomb strapped to his chest you may be off the hook). So authority has no bearing, as does the time-sensitive aspect. The telco wiretapping occurred over the course of years and obviously took some significant hardware implementation and setup.

The so-called "post 9/11 world" is another problem. Can one justify a breach of the law because of political context? Of course not -- we can create arbitrary political contexts to serve any nefarious end in a heartbeat.

IMO anyone would feel forced to comply in a governmental order such as this. Nonetheless you assign a very low value to your customer's privacy when you break a very clear and well-documented law to do so.

[Milo_Bloom]

30. You are kidding, right?

You don't think the status of the individual is relavant?

So changing the person to a homeless drifter does nothing?

Please, stop and think. The uniform/badge ADDS VALIDITY to the statement by default. The quesiton is reasonableness. Believing an officer in uniform is more reasonable than believing a homeless drifter.

[wtmusic]

34. Of course not

I would no sooner shoot someone because a cop told me to than a man on the street. A cop would never do something like that, so any cop that makes that request is immediately suspect.

See the analogue with the administration's request?

[Milo_Bloom]

36. No, because what you would PERSONALLY do is of no import

The question is what the individual reasonably believes, which is ultimately at the decision of a jury and or judge.

Many, if not most, people would obey the officer of the law and/or at the very least BELIEVE the officer of the law and then act accordingly.

[wtmusic]

37. So if a cop told you to shoot someone you would?

Simple question.

[Milo_Bloom]

40. Possibly. It would depend on facts/circumstances. (nt)

[robinlynne]

16. The FIS bill which congress wants to pass says the president's oders to the telcoms

were legal orders. Since the telecoms were obeying govt orders, the orders were legal.

[Milo_Bloom]

23. TY for clarifying!!!

Because that extends the immunity to the executive branch which is ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT.

I am all for stating that the companies BELIEVED they were following legal orders and thus are immune, but declaring the orders de-facto immune to give immunity is not necessary and is a backwards way of declaring the orders legal on their face, which they were not.

[robinlynne]

14. If you give the companies immunity, you stop all the legal proceedings.

The ACLU, and 12- 15 other epople and organizations currently are awaiting trial, and have been since 2001. The first trial came up, from Qwests' former CEo, and the information whihc comes out, is against BUsh. bush wants all these trials squashed right now. So immunity for the telecoms would effectively give Bush immunity. There is no longer an illegal act, if congress declares it legal. Even if Bush were not immune, he would be for all intents and purposes because the lawsuits will not exist.

[Milo_Bloom]

25. It doesn't have to...

You could grant immunity to the companies and transfer the liability where it belongs, to the government entity who gave the orders in the first place.

This is why I am asking the question. You can declare that telecoms believed they were acting upon legal orders and are thus, immune, without declaring the underlying action legal.

Back to my example... if a cop jumps in your car and orders you to speed, you are immune from getting a speeding ticket. HOWEVER, the speed limits are not now defunct for all people AND the cop may be held liable for giving that order to you in the first place.

[robinlynne]

32. nice if you want to see the golden lining, but why not just let the trials happen?

If you give them immunity, you stop the 12 trials about to happen, hence the information which will come out against Bush in the trials.

[Milo_Bloom]

43. Why can't the suits proceed against the proper parties?

Why should a company be forced to pay legal expenses so information can come out against bush? Plaintiff's can amend complaints to sue the proper parties if the companies are dismissed from the lawsuit.

This law should be written properly, not the way it is now, to allow for the lawsuits to continue against the proper party.

After someone explained what is in the bill, I agree the BILL must be stopped, but I want to draw a distinction between THIS BILL (which excluses the action on behalf of the government to grant immunity to the companies) and a proper bill, which would grant immunity to the companies WITHOUT excusing or making legal the action of the government officials who ordered the companies in the first place.

See the difference?

[robinlynne]

44. the point is, all the suits are about to be quashed. Do you want that?

And the people who actually committed the crimes are the phone companies. If "someone else is guilty" they can argue that in court.
or not.
The choices are: let the lawsuits happen.
or
pass the fisa bill granting immunity.

The way you or I want it is not under debate.
there is:
immunity or
the Constitution

[Milo_Bloom]

45. If that is the only choice... quash the lawsuits.

In all honesty, yes, I would want these cases quashed since they are being waged against the wrong party and I do not feel these companies should be forced to spend millions of dollars (ultimately passed onto consumers) to defend suits they shouldn't be involved in, in the first place.

[robinlynne]

46. we disagree. And the lawsuits are not all about money. The ACLU is doing the suing

to protect our rights. They are not suing for money. They are suing to restore our constitution.

[Milo_Bloom]

48. This has NOTHING to do with the constitution.

The constitution does not apply to the actions of private companies, so to suggest that the ACLU is suing private companies to protect the constitution is incorrect.

Suing Verizon, SBC, Qwest or any other telecom company for damages under a federal act has no impact on the constitution.

The only way the ACLU can sue to "restore our constitution" is if they sue the GOVERNMENT for their actions, not private companies, which is exactly what I am stating.

[robinlynne]

49. wiretapping without a warrant is unconstitutional. that is what they did.

[Milo_Bloom]

50. Wrong.

A private company CANNOT violate the constitution.

The constitution ONLY applies to the relationship between THE GOVERNMENT and THE PEOPLE.

[robinlynne]

51. I don't know if that is true or not, will check with landshark.

[Milo_Bloom]

53. It's true.

Just stop and think about it.

If the Constitution applied to entities other than the government, DU would not be allowed to remove posts, since doing so would violate free speech. However, the Constitution does not apply to the goings on here.

If these lawsuits are against the companies, they are being brought under a federal statute and NOT under a constitutional provision.

[depakid]

7. Because he's been a far right enabler since day one

of his so called "leadership."

He'll go down in history as the most ineffective minority/majority leader ever.

Actually makes on pine for Daschle.

[lyonn]

8. Had to kick this post as this issue is critical

Haven't followed what Harry is or isn't doing concerning our privacy. Usually it is what Harry isn't doing that bothers me.

[robinlynne]

10. Today it is what he's doing. They (both sides) negotiated a terrible deal

yesterday, whereby the fisa bill would a) give blanket warrants to the president, as opposed to warrants with names on them and b) grant immunity ot the tel-com corporations for the illegal wiretapping they have been doing.

That would end the 12 or 15 lawsuits that are currently coming to trail which would ring to light the illegal doings of bushco, att and verizon. Senator Dodd stood up and put a hold on the bill. For the FIRST TIME EVER, Harry Reid is going to override a hold from a Democrat! The Democrats really want to ruin our country. This is serious.

[lyonn]

28. Sheesh, are we missing some grand strategy of

Harry and Nancy? They are portraying themselves as Wise Counselors, well then, they should explain so those of us that that are confused (and pissed) understand. Superiority seems to get into a politicians DNA once they get a crowd behind them. They begin to believe their own press clipping (old, old saying).

[ThomCat]

15. Break the law once, it's a crime.

Break the law thousands of times, it's just policy.
x(

[PBass]

47. They want to give immunity to Telecom companies, without knowing exactly

what happened. The administration hasn't disclosed the scope of the program(s), given an accounting of who was spied on, how long the program has been in effect, or anything else.

Shouldn't Congress know what the crimes are, that the Telecom companies are excused from, before they vote to give them immunity?

Or is that too much to ask, when there's a terrorist hiding under every bed?

[Elspeth]

52. What I hate is that they call it "eavesdropping", like they're a bunch of nosy neighbors

and not the friggin US government.