Immunity or impunity?

The NSA warrantless eavesdropping program has already been ruled in violation of FISA by a federal court. Then suddenly, no one was prosecuted for it. Articles of Impeachment were filed and it didn't even make the evening news. Who is supposed to be enforcing the law?

by Gustav Wynn (51 articles, 34 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 237 comments) on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 at 10:57:15 AM
 

Comment is hidden

Why are so many elected

who don't believe in the Bill of Rights and happily break their oath to protect and defend the Consitution??

by Laudyms (0 articles, 759 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 378 comments) on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 at 5:22:28 PM
 

Anyone voting for this "compromise"

is aiding and abetting crimes against the constitution, (fourth amendment), and is therefore guilty of treason. I really believe this and I believe that no Bush democrat should be elected or re-elected. This includes anyone who votes 'yes' on this bill or does not join in on a filibuster.

This is just one crime among many.

We need impeachment to happen now! 

by Cheryl Abraham (13 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 139 comments) on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 at 5:40:44 PM
 

SUBMITTED WITH RESPECT

I agree philosophically with much of what you have written, but I think you have made some factual errors that should be addressed. Although the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits searches and seizures without "probable cause", searches and seizures without warrants are allowed if they are considered to be reasonable (e.g., a police officer who apprehends a man fleeing from a bank robbery). In the case of KATZ v. UNITED STATES (1967), the Supreme Court stated: "The Government's eavesdropping activities violated the privacy upon which petitioner justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a 'search and seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment." As specified by the Fourth Amendment, the government must have some reasonable basis for directing a search at a particular target. However, there is a lot of evidence that our government is engaged in electronic surveillance of all communications entering the United States without consideration of whether probable cause exists for such surveillance.

Although a reasonable search does not necessarily require a warrant, probable cause is a prerequisite for any reasonable search of the communication of a U.S. citizen or other legal U.S. resident. Contrary to what defenders of the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program may posit, a search is not reasonable merely because the underlying motivation (e.g., the possibility that a search may uncover dangerous illegal activity) for the search is reasonable. With the exception of physical searches at international borders (which historically is limited to the enforcement of customs laws), a search is not reasonable if probable cause does not exist for the search. Otherwise, there would be no legal barrier to prevent us from living under constant surveillance.

The telecommunication providers that assisted with the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution because the Fourth Amendment is directed against searches and seizures by our government (not against private citizens or other private entities), but these telecommunication providers did violate federal statutes. Title 50 U.S. Code, Section 1809 and Title 18 U.S. Code, Section 2511 provide for criminal penalties for unlawful interception of electronic communications, but the U.S. Department of the Obstruction of Justice will not even investigate whether the telecommunication providers that assisted with the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program committed criminal violations because the criminal activity was directed by our own government and because all of the government officials who engaged in this criminal activity are also engaged in obstruction of justice. Title 50 U.S. Code, Section 1810 and Title 18 U.S. Code, Section 2520 provide for civil penalties for unlawful interception of electronic communications, and the lawsuits pending against the telecommunication providers that assisted with the Terrorist Surveillance Program are authorized by these Federal statutes. The government officials who authorized the illegal searches and seizures violated federal statutes and also violated the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

With regard to "ex post facto" laws that are prohibited by the Constitution, this provision has been interpreted to prevent the government from making some activity illegal that was not illegal at the time the activity was performed. Although it is extremely unlikely that any Federal Court would prevent the government from removing criminal sanctions from an activity that was considered to be illegal at the time the activity was performed, it is my opinion that it is unconstitutional for the government to selectively immunize a person or entity from criminal liability or civil liability for violating a federal statute because such selective immunity violates the "due process" clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. It is obvious that litigating this issue would be difficult.

I am sorry to nitpick your article because I share many of your sentiments, but I think if is important to be precise when we make allegations of illegal activity. I agree with you that it is illegal for Congress to grant immunity to the telecommunication providers that assisted with the Terrorist Surveillance Program because such immunity is tantamount to obstruction of justice with respect to the Bush Administration and because such a grant of immunity prevents the plaintiffs in the lawsuits against the telecommunication providers from receiving the due process of law. I also agree with you that the so-called War of Terror is a fraud because it is our own government that uses terror as a means of eroding our constitutional rights while our government simultaneously depletes our Treasury (human and financial) on misdirected military adventures.

by Blaine Kinsey (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments) on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 at 9:00:19 PM
 

Reasonable=with reason=with probable cause

According to Article VI of the Constitution, laws must be made in pursuance of the Constitution.  

 Article V states that this Constitution shall be valid to all intents and purposes. 

Reasonable = means with probable cause.

  You said:

 "searches and seizures without warrants are allowed if they are considered to be reasonable (e.g., a police officer who apprehends a man fleeing from a bank robbery).

When justices use that argument, they seem to be using the definition of reasonable as if it means appropriate.

However, the word, "reasonable" is derived from the word, "reason."  "Reason," within this context, is synonomous with cause.  A judge needs to show cause, (give a reason) for granting a warrant.  All warrantless searches are therefore unconstitutional.   

According to Article VI of the Constitution, laws  that conflict with the Constitutional aren't valid.  Article V states that this Constitution shall be valid to all intents and purposes. 

by Susan Allen (18 articles, 3 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 23 comments) on Saturday, June 28, 2008 at 12:07:45 AM
 

and I will add...

If this spying, surveillance and easedropping was so "legal and ethical", why did Qwest bow out and NOT do it? Certainly when Qwest stated no, that it was illegal and against the constitution, the other companies weren't so ignorant that they did NOT know this. Are we to believe that Qwest has constitutional geniuses working within their corporation but AT&T, Verizon et al. just didn't know the 4rth Amednment existed?

I believe it's the LOBBYING AND THE CAMPAIGN donations that are giving these telecoms immunity, not facts and legalities.

You can bet your ass they surveillanced every single one of us. I know AOL did my email, and believe they still do. They don't target evil commie satan worshippers. They target American citizens that object to the War in Iraq, the Bush Administration lies and deceit, and citizens that belong to such horrid groups like Peace activists, Peta, Greenpeace, environmental groups and other oh so bad people. Yet they leave the KKK alone.

It's time to vote 3rd party and give both parties a run for the cliff.

by shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 273 comments) on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 at 9:55:00 PM
 

WE GET THE PICTURE. SMILE AT THE FIRING SQUAD.

We are on our own. We are orphans in the storm. Some will survive,

probably the ones with some means and no gumption.

Heil Dubya sounds good for an Emperor. Now go back to sleep and

have happy dreams. The Homeland Gestapo will show you where to put

your personal belongings before the shower.

by Wolfie (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 1068 comments) on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 at 12:45:27 AM
 

Here's an action strategy which I suggest:

Let's all take up our pens, do our homework, and expose the voting record of our local Congressperson who voted for this. And urge readers to vote them out of office, and to spread word to that effect.

Shut up Wolfie. The dogs are barking because you are riding. We don' t  need negativity and discouragement, and you know it too. This is deliberate work on your part and you are A-moral, not immoral. Ship out or shape up! That is what I would say if I was Rob Kall and this was my forum. In fact, I would have booted you off long ago. Get lost!

by Kathryn Smith (87 articles, 2 quicklinks, 35 diaries, 342 comments) on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 at 1:10:22 AM
 

I'll SECOND THAT!

Thanks for stepping up!

The trivial BS that canine posts is not useful in any way AND it's not even amusing either!

Thanks for speaking out. 

by mrk * (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 296 comments) on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 at 2:03:38 AM
 

BOW WOW.

If you are referring to this mangy mutt, I take no offense.

I wish only to stir your emotions, which I seemed to have done.

Now tell me who do I write to , or post to, or cry to, or talk to, or

scream to, or get anything of import from.

You want to talk a good game, then what is your strategy in one concise

paragraph that is going to be taken seriously by a non-nerd unlike me.

Bring it on! Or just shut up.

by Wolfie (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 1068 comments) on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 at 3:58:31 AM
 

Strategy

The stragegy is simple.  Compare legislative action in Congressional Record with Constitutional law.  Expose law-breaking legislators in writing to their main constituent voting bace.  

Under Constitutional law, we are Sovereign Kings and Queens and it's time we started acting like Kings and Queens.   Since when do Kings and Queens of Europe pay their subjects taxes?   It's absurd.   We do not have to pay income taxes.  Paying anything but sales taxes to the Federal government is illegal. 

by Susan Allen (18 articles, 3 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 23 comments) on Wednesday, July 2, 2008 at 11:32:09 PM
 

Comment is hidden

Comment is hidden