A M Cooper
- : New York
-
LOL Yer doin' it wrong. You need to try harder.
Posted at June 30, 2008 4:21 PM in response to Obama's Patriotism Speech Stresses Life Story, Criticizes MoveOn
-
Is Bloomberg a good mayor if you completely exclude the events around the 2004 Republican Convention, with massive law enforcement overreach & crushed dissent?
I'm just gonna leave that question out there.
Choosing Republicans as running mates and cabinet members is a nonstarter. I thought it was common knowledge over here that the 'Unity' in 'Magical Unity Pony' came with a wink.
Posted at June 22, 2008 12:45 PM in response to Mayor Bloomberg Tells Jews To Reject Obama Smears
-
The company came under fire last year for a letter that Diebold CEO Walden O'Dell wrote as a fundraising pitch to Republicans. In the letter, O'Dell said he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president."
Smarter trolls, please.Posted at June 19, 2008 5:16 PM in response to John Kerry: Obama's Public Financing Decision Will Enable Him To Avoid My Fate
-
I suspect that many, perhaps all, of the surveillance efforts were "real," by which I mean the Government really was trying to go after terrorists.
I think I'll stop there.Posted at June 19, 2008 4:58 PM in response to "Bipartisan" Solution on Surveillance Unveiled
-
If you dont like the way the Executive Branch interprets the law [...]
In my country, the Executive Branch doesn't interpret the law. The Judicial Branch does. What country are you in?Posted at June 19, 2008 4:56 PM in response to "Bipartisan" Solution on Surveillance Unveiled
-
First, no matter how good the lawyers are, they are not going to have access to the underlying (classified) facts that the Executive Branch is basing its findings on, so they would not be able to effectively test the view of the Executive.
They don't have to. That's the job of the FISA court. All the telecomms need is a warrant.More important, the Telcom's lawyers are not working for me (the taxpayer) -- there interest is their client.
This is why the Telecomms should be subject to lawsuits. They knew they were possibly breaking the law. They chose to take the risk. They should be held to account.However, as much as I believe that FISA is the only legal mechanism for such surveillance (and yes, I am a lawyer), I also recognize that a lot of very good lawyers dont agree with me -- the question of whether there is an independent Executive Branch authority (outside FISA) is a "live" legal question.
If this is the case, it is surprising. But it doesn't change matters. If it's a live legal question, then it should be resolved in the courts. Hence, the lawsuits should be allowed to proceed.I'm sorry if a bunch of corporations need to be dragged through the courts. But they were certainly aware of the risks. Their getting bailed out by Congress amounts to rewarding bad behavior, as well as the erosion of our privacy rights, such as they are.
Posted at June 19, 2008 4:46 PM in response to "Bipartisan" Solution on Surveillance Unveiled
-
This seems to a fair statement of what has long been the law -- a good faith reliance by a citizen (even a corporate citizen) on a clear statement by the government of what the law is, should be prevent that same government from prosecuting that citizen, or allowing that citizen to be sued for accepting the Government's representation.
Except that (1) the telecomms have armies of well-paid lawyers who ought to know the law and (2) the telecomms know that in order to wiretap domestically, they need a warrant signed by a judge, and they know this because they actually receive these requests.Posted at June 19, 2008 3:26 PM in response to "Bipartisan" Solution on Surveillance Unveiled
-
Yes. Immunity in and of itself is not the problem. The problem is that we don't get much in return for the immunity (contrary to the apparent insinuation of your previous note). We get evidence of a letter from the executive saying, "It's all right -- it's legal." That only has value if Congress can use it to go after the executive. Whether they can or not, they won't.
We would have gotten more information about the mechanism of illegal warrantless wiretapping if the lawsuits had been allowed to progress normally. And if the verdict had gone against them, it would have reaffirmed the illegality of the program, providing legal precedent.
Oh well. I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway.
Posted at June 19, 2008 3:17 PM in response to "Bipartisan" Solution on Surveillance Unveiled
-
I am certain that Barrow will help Obama as much as Lieberman has.
My certainty. Let me show you it.
Posted at June 19, 2008 12:43 PM in response to Obama Cuts Ad For Conservative Pro-War House Dem
-
If the companies can show a federal district court judge "substantial evidence" they received a written request from the attorney general or head of an intelligence agency stating the president authorized the surveillance and determined it to be lawful, the cases against them will be dismissed.
That is the condition. If they fulfill that condition, they will be immunized. --
This is really a slow-motion car wreck we're watching here. I'm kinda hoping that the plaintiffs in the current suits against the telecomms can and will challenge this legislation, & that the courts will have an opportunity to review it & toss it in a dustbin of the rapidly growing Fourth Amendment Dustbin Complex. --
And why Obama is not providing real leadership on this is beyond me. There must be a reason. Either he's financially tied up with the telecomms, or he wants the spying powers for himself.Posted at June 19, 2008 12:35 PM in response to Lawmakers Reach Deal Over Government Surveillance Powers
