FISA
Feb 23, 2008 by
OCSteve
Hmm.
"We have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress' failure to act," McConnell and Mukasey wrote to Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-Tex.), chairman of the House intelligence committee. "Because of this uncertainty, some partners have reduced cooperation."
The two officials noted that some companies have "delayed or refused compliance" with requests to add surveillance targets to general orders that were approved before the law expired. They did not provide further details.
I'm not sure what I think about this. Obvious fear-mongering, but with some reality behind it. But Jes is off the intertubes this weekend so I can afford to be wrong...
I have to give some credence to the speculation that the Democrats' opposition is more about the trial lawyers than civil liberties. Call me cynical...
Comments
Feb 23, 2008, 23:08:48 john miller wrote:
What reality?
First of all, since there is a lot more legal than there was in 2001, what do they need to have these aprtners do?
Secondly, as has been publicized a lot, the government has not paid these bills, and both Verizon and ATT had stopped doing a lot of the dirty work for the government a while ago.
Thirdly, how the fuck do we know that any intelligence has been lost? Because somebody from this administration says so?
And finally, the administration refused to go along with an extension of the act, so who are they to complain?
Feb 23, 2008, 23:10:36 john miller wrote:
Oh, and BTW, since most of the lawyers involved in the suits are basically doing this pro bono, I don't think it relates to the trial lawyers. And if it did, I am sure several Republicans would be on board, such as Menendez in FL.
I will also be off for the weekend starting in just a little while, so have a good one everyone.
Feb 24, 2008, 00:46:06 OCSteve wrote:
I suppose those allegations (trial lawyers) could be completely made up. When Congress-critters make allegations like that I usually assume they are exaggerating but there is some grain of truth to it.
Feb 24, 2008, 02:17:05 JayS wrote:
I suspect your grain of truth boils down to people like CharleCarp signing a petition along with an attempt at a class action lawsuit by some other lawyer(s). Just plug that in with tort reform and claims that everybody knows Democrats are being funded by trial lawyers (and unions!) and you've got a nice conspiracy theory snowball going. Trial Lawyers are the new Illuminati.
The same kinds of grains that got Lindsey Graham whining about DVD players in habeus cases.
Feb 24, 2008, 02:43:12 KCinDC wrote:
Yeah, those ACLU folks are just in it for the money. They're all rolling in it, you know. Step away from the wingnutosphere, OCSteve.
Where is your evidence for the "some reality behind it"?
And if as the administration claims there was nothing illegal in the surveillance, why would the telecoms need immunity? You don't immunize people for doing things that are lawful.
Feb 24, 2008, 03:12:10 OCSteve wrote:
Well I [i]said[/i] I wasn’t sure what to think about it. I figured you all would clue me in. ;)
[i] Where is your evidence for the "some reality behind it"?[/i]
McConnell and Mukasey have claimed that “some companies have "delayed or refused compliance" with requests to add surveillance targets to general orders that were approved before the law expired.”
Either they are both lying out their ass or there is some reality there. I don’t believe McConnell would completely fabricate this – therefore I believe there is some reality behind it.
Feb 24, 2008, 03:46:15 JayS wrote:
If McConnell and Mukasey are not lying, then it appears that they were trying have the Telcos break the law in modifying an existing order. IANAL but I understand that the law allowed existing orders to stand for some time after the law expired. New or modified orders involving new targets would have to be made under FISA and might involve the FISA court.
The Telcos would be right to object to being asked to break the law. Why is the government avoiding the FISA court? It probably would take some effort to untangle the non FISA surveillance to present a FISA case for adding to an order, but they set up this battle and should have prepared for the issues that came up. This is all about Telco immunity and not about our security.
Feb 24, 2008, 04:16:33 KCinDC wrote:
Since willingness to lie out your ass is a requirement for service in this administration, I don't know why you'd assume that McConnell wouldn't do it.
But let's assume it's true. Unless they're asking the telecoms to break the law, what reason would the telecoms have to balk? And are you suggesting that if the telecoms are refusing to comply with lawful investigations of terrorist activity before a special law is passed to benefit them then it's Congress's fault for not passing the law? What other circumstances would you find that sort of blackmail acceptable in?
Feb 24, 2008, 04:28:35 OCSteve wrote:
[i]And are you suggesting..[/i]
Not suggesting anything. I said I don’t know what to think about it. And I still don’t.
Feb 24, 2008, 06:25:05 nous wrote:
[quote]The agencies justify their peacetime existence by promising to provide timely warning of a threat to national security.... Over the years intelligence agencies have brainwashed successive governments into accepting three propositions that ensure their survival and expansion. The first is that in the secret world it may be impossible to distinguish success from failure. A timely warning of attack allows the intended victim to prepare. This causes the aggressor to change its mind; the warning then appears to be wrong. The second proposition is that failure can be due to incorrect analysis of the agency's accurate information.... The third proposition is that the agency could have offered timely warning had it not been starved of funds. In combination these three propositions can be used to thwart any rational analysis of an intelligence agency's performance, and allow any failure to be turned into a justification for further funding and expansion. (Philip Knightley - [i]The Second Oldest Profession[/i] quoted in Manuel DeLanda's [i]War in the Age of Intelligent Machines[/i][/quote]
I take this latest complaint to be a variation on the third proposition.
Feb 24, 2008, 07:35:18 Jesurgislac wrote:
Oh, I'm not off the Internet this weekend. I am just being <I>mellow</I>. So you're wrong? Why should I care? ;-) *pours decaf tea*
I've drunk a lot of decaf tea in the past 24 hours.
Feb 24, 2008, 07:59:55 OCSteve wrote:
Jes! Get wild! Give up the decaf and go for the real stuff...
Feb 24, 2008, 16:32:38 Jesurgislac wrote:
Oh, I just found a new brand of decaf tea that tastes [i]fine[/i].
Feb 24, 2008, 19:37:58 libjpn wrote:
[i]I just found a new brand of decaf tea[/i]
Come on, give it up, I need to cut down on my caffeine.
Feb 24, 2008, 21:01:34 Jesurgislac wrote:
Good luck to you: I doubt it's available in Japan or the US.
[url=http://www.99tea.co.uk]http://www.99tea.co.uk[/url]
Feb 24, 2008, 21:18:56 Phil wrote:
If Mitch McConnell told me I was a 38-year-old white male, I'd look in a mirror and check in my undershorts just to be sure.
And blaming Congress is rich, given that the [i]majority[/i] in Congress were perfectly willing to pass a new bill, or even an emergency extension, that did not include immunity for past lawbreaking by the telcos, and Mr. 19% has petulantly refused to sign any such bill or extension.
Thus, he and his personality cult have made it vibrantly clear that telco immunity, and not national security, are what they really care about.
I should think that "intelligence we have lost" is one of those unknown unknowns, btw.
Feb 25, 2008, 04:41:19 JayS wrote:
As everyone probably already knows, things are back to [url=\'http://www.latimes.com/news...'] status quo with the telcos.[/url] at least for now.
They still claim they missed stuff.
[quote]"Unfortunately, the delay resulting from this discussion impaired our ability to cover foreign intelligence targets, which resulted in missed intelligence information," Mukasey and McConnell added.[/quote]
Feb 26, 2008, 01:26:57 hilzoy wrote:
OCSteve: fwiw, the people who have filed suit against the telcos are, to the best of my knowledge, nonprofits like the EFF and the ACLU, not private lawyers.
Feb 26, 2008, 03:44:02 OCSteve wrote:
hilzoy: I only went as far as “some credence” because I’m pretty cynical where all politicians are concerned these days.
I’m sure that some Senators voted their conscience on this. But I’m also cynical enough to believe that some voted to benefit their contributors.
Amanda Carpenter:
http://www.townhall.com/col...
[i]Court records and campaign contribution data reveal that 66 trial lawyers representing plaintiffs in lawsuits against these phone companies donated at least $1.5 million to Democrats, including 44 current Democratic senators.[/i]
She also notes that 24 of the 29 Senators who voted against it “have accepted campaign contributions from trial lawyers who are suing the government over those activities”.
She only names a couple of (big) names. It would be nice if she would post all of her research. But apparently there are a lot more plaintiff’s lawyers involved then just the nonprofits…
And I’m [i]sure[/i] that some Republicans voted in favor because they have big telcomm contributors so they aren’t any better.
It would just be nice if they all weren’t beholding to special interest groups… (I know – and a pony..)
Feb 26, 2008, 04:00:29 john miller wrote:
OCSteve, look at it this way. It could be that the senators are voting a certain way because they received contributions form these lawyers. However, just, if not more likely, is that the lawyers, who are in this because of what they believe is right and not for money, are contributing to these politicians because they feel the politicians will make every attempt to do what is right.
Personally, I tend to believe the latter. But then I may be the naive one.
Feb 26, 2008, 04:21:37 nous wrote:
$1.5 M /66/44 = just over $500 per person.
How much influence will that buy?
And, sure, the actual figures probably vary a lot more than that, but that just means that the lower end is probably considerably less than $500 for the upper end to get into any sort of noticeable figures.
Meanwhile:
http://blog.wired.com/27bst...
And:
http://www.forbes.com/forbe...
The Telco's are way ahead on PAC money.
Feb 26, 2008, 04:27:05 nous wrote:
Just for the record, I'm not very happy with either Rockefeller or Feinstein right now, and Feinstein has heard about it several times in the last few months. And my money has been going to the EFF.
Feb 26, 2008, 05:25:23 KCinDC wrote:
Phil, the letter was by Mike McConnell, director of national intelligence, who is not to be confused with Mitch McConnell, Senate minority leader. Both may very well be liars, but it's important to keep them straight.
Feb 26, 2008, 06:07:32 OCSteve wrote:
[i] However, just, if not more likely, is that the lawyers, who are in this because of what they believe is right and not for money, are contributing to these politicians because they feel the politicians will make every attempt to do what is right.[/i]
I could say the same things about Republicans… Well OK, no I can’t. I start laughing too hard to type.
[i]The Telco's are way ahead on PAC money.[/i]
But do they specify with those donations whether they are looking for retroactive immunity or a vote against net neutrality? ;) You’re right of course that the money pile is rather lopsided.
Anyway folks I just said “some credence” – not that I fully believed they were all in the pocket of rich trial lawyers.
Mar 02, 2008, 12:29:16 CharleyCarp wrote:
I can't speak for trial lawyers -- it's not a label to which I answer (see von's discussions of this term) -- but I can't see at all why they would be driving this fight. There's never going to be real money in FISA violation suits. No one is ever going to show real damages.
I am a plaintiff in a suit against the United States to find out if my communications have been intercepted. I'm not interested in suing the phone company -- either as a lawyer or a party -- it'd be enough to collect my statutory FISA damages from the government officials who ordered illegal interception (if indeed my communications were illegally intercepted). And even that's not about the money, but rather if I am the victim of a crime, I'd like the criminals to be held accountable in some way.
Conservatives used to go in for ideas like that, before that got hijacked by bloodthirsty tribalism.
Log in here
Add Comment
