This pretty much sums up my feelings on the issue. We could come up with all sorts of hypotheticals where the government approaches a company and asks them to do something that they should reject nor expect immunity from if they did agree.
I do not see how these companies could be unaware of the legal issues surrounding such a request besides which my understanding is ignorance of the law is no excuse anyway.
As above I am willing to be schooled on why my sense of this is wrong but if these companies overstepped their authority then they absolutely should be held to account.
I am disappointed in both decisions. Why should the telecoms get away with what they did. ? Why did Obama opt out of the public campaign financing. ? I am used to this admin justifying illegal and immoral acts because they think in the end they suit their purposes… I expected more from the dems. We need a viable alternative party or two.
Yes, this announcement, taken along with Obama’s decision to forgo public financing, has been troubling for me. My strong support of Obama has always been contingent on my perception of him as a politician who, while able to play politics with the big boys and girls, can still manage to remain ideologically pure and maintain firm support for those basic lefty principals that the Democratic party has been rediscovering over the last 8 years.
His recent moves are beginning to smack of triangulation. I fear that Obama is making a dash for the center now that he’s got the nomination and his faithful base is no longer useful to him. I’m not particularly surprised – just a little disappointed.
I’ll still think he’s the best Democratic candidate to come down the pike in the last 40 years, and I’ll still vote for him in November without hesitation.
If the actions of the telecoms were legal, the courts would rule in their favor in any lawsuits. If it’s clear cut, then the courts will rule very quickly.
I don’t like it when one branch of government short-circuits the legal process. The legislature made the laws, now let the courts decide on them. And if the result is out of whack with common sense, then the executive can forgive.
It behooves us to consider the context of the times, there was madness abroad in the land, in those days. There was zero chance that the telecomms could have resisted. None. They were assured that the situation was legally covered, and they were convinced by the people who make and enforce the laws.
Ideally, I wish they would have resisted, but that simply isn’t realistic. If word had gotten out (I dunno, unfortunately leaked, somehow, nobody seems to know how these things get out…) they would have been clobbered. If the Pubbies had wanted to make an issue of it, demand legislation to approve their intent, they probably could have got it. National Security! National Security! Electrolytes!
And what good would opening them up to lawsuits do, anyway, except as a full employment measure for lawyers? Your grandchildren could be graduating from high school by the time this all got resolved. And if the high muckety-mucks of the telecomms had resisted to any significant degree, they would have found themselves standing by the side of the freeway with signs saying “Will Peruse Spreadsheets for Food.” Replaced by thier subordinates with a more realistic view of the topography of the bread, relative to the placement of their butter.
Not saying I approve, or even accept. Only that I understand. And we have whales to fry before we get down to the perch.
He can wiretap under the law as it was pre 911. He just needs to talk to a judge within three days.
He is against special interest monies. And he is getting enough from the electorate. Are the conservatives so pathetic and devoid of ideas that they can’t find anything worth bitching about?
Is the bill it’s final form yet? Then, what are you babbling about?
More likely it will be overblown, incorrectly reported and confabulated by the Conservatards.
Why? If the government asks you to do something illegal, isn’t it the responsibility of a citizen to refuse? Qwest thought the government’s request stunk and, on the advice of their lawyers, refused to participate. The other telecoms could have done the same.
Because if he agreed to public financing, he would be limited to $85 million in the general election. He will be able to raise at least $250 million on his own. In other words, he’s playing to win.
Would you make third parties injured by criminal acts unable to collect damages from those committing the acts if they originated with entrapment?
I think a stronger case can be made for protecting the telecoms from federal prosecution for these violations than for retroactively eliminating their civil liability.
Most jurisdictions have restrictions on when a landlord can enter a tenant’s residence. A landlord can’t just wander in and out at whim. He needs to have a valid reason – like repairing a broken pipe, or showing the unit to a future renter.
Say the police show up without a warrant and ask the landlord to unlock the tenant’s door so they can rummage around inside. He does so, in violation of the local civil code determining landlord/tenant relations.
Would you argue that the landlord should be given immunity from being sued in this situation? Would you consider granting that immunity a “no brainer”?
It really depends on the manner by which they compel the landlord to allow them access to the premises. I’m sure a lot of landlords would whip out the key mighty fast in the presence of a couple of feds in black suits promising to “make their life difficult” if they did not comply, and I’m not sure I could fault them for falling subject to certain intimidation tactics. However, if state troopers showed up and just asked to get in, I’d be more than a little upset if the landlord didn’t request to see a warrant.
If the cops showed up and said that there was “an emergency, let us in that apartment over there”, and the landlord does so, then no, I can’t fault him/her for not knowing that there was actually no emergency.
