hisownpetard
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-10-08 03:20 PM
Original message |
Re FISA: Anyone know the exact date to which the retroactive immunity extends? |
|
If it only goes back to 9/11/01, and it can be proven that BushCo. actually started doing their illegal snooping seven months prior to that - couldn't they be held legally liable for acts committed during those seven months?
|
elehhhhna
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-10-08 03:37 PM
Response to Original message |
1. text here, looks like it does spcify 9/11/01... |
hisownpetard
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-10-08 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. Thanks for the link. Far as I can tell, it only goes back to 9/11/01. Is this the loophole |
|
through which the evil-doers could still be held accountable?
Any legal eagles out there who could interpret this? I haven't seen/heard this discussed before.
Be still, my heart...
|
Egnever
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-10-08 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. The fisa bill does not stop people from being proecuted over this |
|
in fact it calls for an investigation into what happened that IMHO will lead to prosecutions. Of course I am not a lawyer so YMMV.
|
hisownpetard
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-10-08 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
hisownpetard
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-10-08 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
6. If it extends retroactive immunity to the telecoms, that doesn't preclude the possibility of them |
AZ Criminal JD
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-10-08 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
10. There will be no prosecutions |
|
First, the statute of limitations has already run on claims before 9/11/2001. Second, in order to have a criminal prosecution the prosecutor must show intent and they can't do that if the government asked them to do the taps.
|
hisownpetard
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-10-08 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
13. If the gov't asked them to do the wiretaps and both parties knew it was illegal, how does that |
AZ Criminal JD
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-10-08 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
14. Good luck to showing someone knew it was illegal |
|
When the government asks you to do it. If you think the government is going to prosecute when they asked them to do it you just don't know how U.S. Attorney's offices work.
|
MrCoffee
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-10-08 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
5. "including the program commonly known as the Terrorist Surveillance Program" |
|
I suppose it depends on what is included in this definition.
|
hisownpetard
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-10-08 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
7. Hey, how ya be, Mr. C? |
MrCoffee
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-10-08 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
9. Same as it ever was... |
|
You've been gone for a bit, haven't you? Or have I been completely oblivious and just missed seeing you?
Either way...:hi:
|
hisownpetard
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-10-08 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
11. I thought *you* were gone! Good to see you're still perkin' along. |
chill_wind
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-10-08 04:08 PM
Response to Original message |
8. Statute of limitations on visa violations is what-- 5 years? |
hisownpetard
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-10-08 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
12. Excellent link. Thank you for that! |
jasonberlin
(89 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-10-08 08:27 PM
Response to Original message |
15. This'll go to the courts... |
|
The ACLU and others will test this in the courts, and I think we might be waiting another 1-2 years to hear what the Supremes have to say about it! Hopefully Scalia and Thomas choke on some Twizzlers before that happens.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri May 10th 2024, 06:46 PM
Response to Original message |