Comments on: Republican No Shows on FISA Negotiation

By: bmaz

bmaz — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:48:39 +0000

Thanks for the links

By: cboldt

cboldt — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:52:02 +0000

Links to yesterday’s statements from the various players. Where President Bush says “How do you compromise on something like granting liability …,” I take it as just a statement of truth, that there is no middle ground between “liability” and “no liability.” I’d mentioned some time ago, if one chamber says “liability,” and the other says “no liability,” that a conference committee to negotiate a compromise makes no sense. One chamber or the other has to capitulate in order to break the deadlock. That conclusion can be reached with out discussing a range of “in between” options, as is typical in more complex horse-trading and negotiations, e.g., the typical action on appropriations.

House and Senate Chairmen Continue Work on FISA Reform
FISA Documents Now Available to Full Judiciary Committee
BOND SLAMS POLITICAL PLOY TO DISMANTLE BIPARTISAN TERRORIST SURVEILLANCE BILL

Roundtable Interview with President and Laura Bush

By: sailmaker

sailmaker — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 07:43:09 +0000

I don’t think they wish to try the legality of signing statements in front of the SOTUS. Putting a signing statement on a bill with no telcom immunity would MAYBE get the Dems wound up enough to bring signing statements before the courtl. Better to just bully congress.

By: PetePierce

PetePierce — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 07:02:31 +0000

Some more tepid exchanges

By: GulfCoastPirate

GulfCoastPirate — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 02:49:26 +0000

MadDog wrote: Leakers and Whistleblowers, look out!

I’m thinking it’s more like the budget better look out. How much are they planning to spend on this nonsense?

By: cboldt

cboldt — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 01:44:00 +0000

– What would the dynamics of the relationship of the telecoms & the government be? –

Symbiotic. They each benefit from the other, and for the most part, their goals and limitations are exactly the same. Each wants the other to succeed, and the telecoms obtain revenue for snooping — the more they snoop, the more they get paid.

The only way I know of to shrink a “centralizing” entity, one that facilitates and encourages long distance connections, to the point that society DEPENDS on those long distance connections, is to develop social units that function without using those connections. I think it’s impossible by now, to effectively assert privacy against the government.

By: bmaz

bmaz — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 01:36:50 +0000

Actually this whole incident has gotten me more curious as to why the telecoms would promote retroactive immunity if “indemnification agreements” and/or “good faith reliance” would be considered adequate protection in this legal quagmire.

Well, thats pretty easy to answer. I didn’t, and don’t, argue that the telcos don’t have some stake in getting immunity. They do. First off, even if they are recompensed, litigating this crap for the next few years, maybe up to ten years with appeals and remands, is a hassle and keeps your corporate name in a negative light. Also, generally, indemnification agreements require the party being indemnified, in this case the telcos, to provide all assistance and best efforts requested and possible to the party supplying the indemnity, in this case the Administration. So, they have a stake in getting immunity, just not the desperate one the Bushies are peddling, and they have no risk of going belly up; that is what I am saying. In a nutshell, they have a reason to want immunity (hey who wants to be sued?); but it sure as hell isn’t compelling enough to give it to them and cover up the crimes of the Bush Administration in the process.

By: ticktock

ticktock — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 01:31:53 +0000

So if what you say is true doesn’t it make these telcoms just as vulnerable if not more so than the general public…

What would the dynamics of the relationship of the telecoms & the government be?..

By: cboldt

cboldt — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 01:26:22 +0000

I’d add that the telecom companies aren’t interested in protecting privacy either, nor are banks, doctors, etc.

“Resistance is futile” Either join the Borg, or be shunned.

By: cboldt

cboldt — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 01:24:17 +0000

– So how do we get out of this mess, anyway? –

Dispel a couple of fictions.

One fiction being that the government “protects” privacy. Another being that the government “trusts” the public, and another being that Congressional laws mean what they say.

The government needs to get back from the public, what the government holds toward the public — contempt.