This issue is not about national security, it is about granting retroactive immunity to the Telco’s that chose to ignore the advice of their own in-house legal counsel. These communicatins carriers chose to cooperative with the government in the hopes of currying favour with the FCC and the Cheney administration.

I was a very senior executive for one of the Telco’s that allowed the government unconstitutional (IMO) access to our network.

We did this AGAINST THE ADVICE of our own company’s legal department who correctly noted it would expose the company to just the kind of legal exposure the Telco’s now potentially face.

We rationalized our decision to break the law with the expectation we would curry favour with Congress, the Cheney Administration, and the FCC. As Rhett Butler so eloquently said in “Gone With The Wind,” when it came to our paying customer’s rights, “Frankly, we didn’t give a damn!”

Only one major Telco chose to reject the Administration’s request for these unconstitutional and warrant-less invasions of privacy.

And we all know what happened to their CEO, Joseph Nacchio.

Yes, it is common knowledge he was specifically targeted for prosecution to be made an “example of” what would happen to any senior Telco executive if they chose to disregard the wishes of the Cheney administration, or attempted to require the Cheney administration to act in accordance with current legal precedents involving wiretapping and warrant-less invasions of customer privacy.

I’m retired now, so I’m out of the game. But IMO what the Cheney administration asked us to do was beyond the pale and was a gross violation of our constitutional rights. But the reality is, from the 100,000′ perspective I was flying at, we really didn’t give a damn about the “little people” who were the majority of our customers.

And most of us believed if we could curry political favour with the Cheney administration and Congress and the FCC, we convinced ourselves the possible gains outweighed the violations of the law we would be committing.

Now that I’m retired, my conscience bothers me and i really do support NOT GRANTING retroactive immunity.

Let the courts and juries sort this out - This is an issue that should be decided by the Judicial Branch of our government, not the Cheney Executive Branch.

I’ve not seen any proof that the Bush administration has abused the
surveillance provisions in the Patriot Act. But consider a few things:

If you think that the Bush administration is the first or only one to
spy without warrants on US citizens, then you are being very naive. Like
I said above, I have never come across any direct proof but I have no
doubt that both federal and state and even local government have people
within them that will disregard the law and will listen in on
conversations without a warrant or intercept physical mail or Internet
traffic. Look how corrupt the Clinton administration was, how corrupt
the Nixon administration was, do you actually think that they would not
spy on citizens without a warrant if they would commit the crimes they
did commit? That’s like expecting a murderer and a thief to obey gun
control laws. Ridiculous.

Consider what the supposed use of the surveillance provisions:

If the CIA/NSA or whomever are tracking and doing surveillance on a
known or suspected terrorist in another country and are listening in on
their phone conversations and then that suspect then calls a number here
in the US, to me, it is perfectly OK for them to continue with the
surveillance, after all, we want to know who and why they are in contact
with individuals here in the US. I don’t see why, though, they can’t
apply for a warrant within the 72 hours which is what I understand the
FISA act provides for. Of course, a judge refused to give a search
warrant to the FBI when it had a laptop that had some information about
hijacking planes and crashing them into the buildings in the mid-90s, so
you have to take a chance that one person, a judge, may totally miss the
import of information.

Already, many people have blamed the Bush administration for ‘not
connecting the dots’ (of course they ignore the almost decade that the
previous administration did almost nothing to stop terrorism and they
ignore the fact that the UN is useless in stopping anything) so what
would you do if you were President? Would you not use everything at your
disposal to try to make sure another attack would not happen? Would you
be willing to make a mistake in your attempt to protect this country or
would you ‘play it safe’ like the previous administration? Tony Blair
said it best when he said (paraphrasing) ‘history will judge us (the
US/Bush, Blair, and those who went along with them) and they may judge
us harshly but we must do our best to make sure that this does not
happen again’.

I think inactivity would have only invited another attack. I also am
convinced that the mettle of the next president,regardless of who he or
she is, will be tested with another attack. I believe that these radical
Muslim terrorist hate the US, not because of our involvement in the
middle east or our support of Israel (ok, well they may hate us for that
as well) but because we stand for everything they are against-especially
equality for women (like that American woman arrested for having coffee
with a man she is not related to, what a bunch of asses) and freedom of
religion.

As for tracking what you are doing online, if you connect your computer
to the Internet, you have no expectation of privacy. That’s just the way
it is and what judges (at least one that I know of) has ruled. I agree
with it. Put up a firewall and encrypt your traffic, but if it is in
“plain sight”, then plain sight rules will apply.

And as for letting the law expire, that was done purely because it is an
election year and so many people have believed the hype that the Bush
administration is routinely spying on citizens in large numbers or
spying on individuals that do not have any connection or suspicion with
terrorists. There have been so many things that are either only
partially true or are out and out false that the general population
believes because it is repeated so often from many outlets (i.e.
man-caused global warming, “Bush lied, thousands died”, Bush blew up the
levee in New Orleans, the moon landing was faked, to name just a few) so
why would this subject be any different?

Wow, this one still is amusing to me. If you are going to take the opinion that “they” being the Bush administration lied about WMDs, then if you are to be intellectually honest, you have to take the stand that “they” means just about everyone in all political parties including Senator Clinton, former President Bill Clinton (who said they were there when he was president, on Larry King Live), along with UN weapons inspectors Scott Ritter and Hans Blix. Remember, a lie is only a lie if you know it to be false when you make the statement. We knew that WMDs were there but could not properly inspect for them. You need to look at it with what we “knew” at the time, not what we know now.

Then there’s at least some evidence that much of the WMDs went over to Syria and then there is proof that residue of biological weapons were found. So, what happened to the stuff that was proven to be in existence, regardless of how old it is?

It’s very easy to have an opinion when you don’t have to make a decision that will impact 100s of millions of people.

Telcos are bound by law to protect the confidentiality of their users. This is not in the least controversial. It has been the law of the land for decades. It is spelled out in the Communications Act of 1934, in 18 U.S.C. titles 2511, 2520 and 2702, and other laws as well. These laws make warrantless eavesdropping a felony and spell out the penalties for it. Those laws are the basis of the lawsuits.

I think anyone with the least respect for law will be unable to avoid the conclusion that the lawsuits should proceed.

It is a fact that they have lied (over WMD’s) and cheated (illegal wiretapping). Hence, I would argue, they have already proven they cannot be trusted with the authority they already have and under no circumstances should be given further carte-blanche powers.

It is also disappointing that some who would have themselves elected president do not have the courage to turn up and vote according to their convictions.

That ignores the facts. The facts are that Speaker Pelosi refused to bring the bill to a vote, even though there were enough so called Blue-Dog Democrat votes to go with the Republicans to pass the bill. Instead she sent directions for negotiations “to begin” in conference. And this was on Friday.

It doesn’t matter which way you believe this one should go. What is important is that people understand the details before they opine. Many of these posts show that people don’t do their homework before forming and posting an opinion.