FISA with Telecom Immunity Passed

calm down. im just trying to have alittle fun with you:)
I was just responding to your post and then Millers101 post which made it sound like I made up the story. What I was pointing out that tracking the bad guys has produced results and may have saved these three guys life. I don't think this wire tapping was under FISA but it does prove to have its uses. It was the bad guys caling the US and they tapped their phones and made several arrest then got those guys phones with taps in them so they could trace them down. Not sure why it took five years but the end result was we got our guys back and caught a few more of the bad guys.

Call me cynical, but I have a VERY hard time believing that this bit of legislation is going to have any actual effect on day to day intelligence gathering activities. I tend to believe that the gov is already doing just about anything and everything in their power to listen to, observe and otherwise gain knowledge of those with ideals opposed to theirs. This legislation is merely a method of covering their ass in the event that something leaks. Maybe i'm paranoid, but I have zero faith in the gov to make a decision to stop what they're doing because they've hit an ethical wall. This is just the paperwork after the fact. Of course, that's all conjecture...

I was just responding to your post and then Millers101 post which made it sound like I made up the story. What I was pointing out that tracking the bad guys has produced results and may have saved these three guys life. I don't think this wire tapping was under FISA but it does prove to have its uses. It was the bad guys caling the US and they tapped their phones and made several arrest then got those guys phones with taps in them so they could trace them down. Not sure why it took five years but the end result was we got our guys back and caught a few more of the bad guys.

Hey Firstdown.........just for the record I was joking around too.

And I see your point in your post, but..........it doesn't bother you? This immunity thing? They should have passed this law first! They shouldn't have just kept Congress in the dark and broken the law. And kept on breaking the law for 7 years or so. That is bullcrud! And now, noone is going to have too answer for it.......EVEN MORE BULLCRUD!

my point, i think, is the same point that guy was trying to make. if you don't have the proper checks and balances in place, the government will definitely misuse this power

Hey Firstdown.........just for the record I was joking around too.

And I see your point in your post, but..........it doesn't bother you? This immunity thing? They should have passed this law first! They shouldn't have just kept Congress in the dark and broken the law. And kept on breaking the law for 7 years or so. That is bullcrud! And now, noone is going to have too answer for it.......EVEN MORE BULLCRUD!
They had congressional hearing about this and even the Judge who testified said that the president did not break any laws. Now if you can show the evidence he broke the law then you have done more than they could do and I'm sure the Dems looked at this from all angles. Now if you feel it is breaking your rights then that is another thing but against the law it wasn't. What they just did here was to put into law the procedure the president has to follow so it is clear to all what powers he does or does not have.

They had congressional hearing about this and even the Judge who testified said that the president did not break any laws. Now if you can show the evidence he broke the law then you have done more than they could do and I'm sure the Dems looked at this from all angles. Now if you feel it is breaking your rights then that is another thing but against the law it wasn't. What they just did here was to put into law the procedure the president has to follow so it is clear to all what powers he does or does not have.

It is not 100% clear whether the President's spying program violated the law. I have seen nothing that conclusively answers that question one way or the other. That shouldn't be terribly surprising - seeing how the precise scope of the program has been kept under lock and key. So, unless someone here is privy to "super secret" information on the program and is legal academic, I don't think anyone on this board is qualified to say whether the President violated the law in creating the program. Nevertheless, non-lawyer conservatives usually say he didn't break the law and non-lawyer liberals usually say he did and should be jailed ... all without knowing what the program entails or what law(s) it implicates.

EDIT - I should mention that I personally think some information has come out which suggests that certain laws may have been violated. But, I don't know whether those reports are accurate and I haven't fully looked into the matter.

It is not 100% clear whether the President's spying program violated the law. I have seen nothing that conclusively answers that question one way or the other. That shouldn't be terribly surprising - seeing how the precise scope of the program has been kept under lock and key. So, unless someone here is privy to "super secret" information on the program and is legal academic, I don't think anyone on this board is qualified to say whether the President violated the law in creating the program. Nevertheless, non-lawyer conservatives usually say he didn't break the law and non-lawyer liberals usually say he did and should be jailed ... all without knowing what the program entails or what law(s) it implicates.

EDIT - I should mention that I personally think some information has come out which suggests that certain laws may have been violated. But, I don't know whether those reports are accurate and I haven't fully looked into the matter.


If laws were not violated why is telecom immunity needed?

If laws were not violated why is telecom immunity needed?
Civil litigation against the telecoms.

powell is a better man than rumsfeld and cheney combined. too bad he got played in the whole deal :/. rumsfeld's "plan as you go without intel" version of waging a war is just about the stupidest thing i've ever seen.

Ding ding we have a winner. I think less of Rumsfeld than almost any person on the face of this earth. Bush has done a bad job but with pretty good intentions. Cheney's methods were crap but again I think he really had "good" intentions. But that jackass Rumsfeld perpetrated his deeds in the name of his ego and vanity. I am convinced we'd all have a much better view of Bush and his administration had Powell been running the deal rather than Rumsfeld. Hell even Tenet was better prepared to wage this war.

Civil litigation against the telecoms.

The litigation essentially targets companies who allegedly conspired with the government to violate certain citizens' constitutional right to privacy. If the spying was not illegal/unconstitutional in the first instance, why would the administration deem it necessary to protect those who helped carry out the spying?