Yes or no? Can the new FISA be overturned by the courts?

[brentspeak]

This is the second time I'm posting this question, but got no feedback the first time around.

[Eric J in MN]

1. It is extremely unlikely that retroactive-immunity will be overturned...

...since there is no inherent right to sue.

Regarding the warrantless wiretapping process in which companies give the government massive amounts of data to data-mine, there is some chance of that being struck down, though I wouldn't bet on it.

[atreides1]

2. According to some it can be

But those would be the people who wear rose colored glasses and truly believe that this will be looked at again once the Democrats are back in the White House.

Personally, I don't see it happening, just like I don't see either of the Patriot Acts being repealed.

No, all of these laws will remain in place probably for the rest of my life.

Now all we have to do is to make sure that a Repuke never gets back inton the White House again!!!

[fascisthunter]

5. They All Just Gave Away their Rights

by going along....

[Robbien]

3. Why would our federalist courts overturn the bill?

Imperialistic powers are their mantra. What would encourage any president to give up powers and stack the courts with judges who would make such limiting judgments?

But yes, the Supremes can declare a bill unconstitutional. I don't see that happening in this new US of A of ours.

[robinlynne]

4. There is an 18 minute video on DU explaining why it was so important not to give

telecom immunity. That part cannot be reversed. And the cases against the government were all knocked out of court for lack of standing. in other words, the citizens have the right to sue the telecoms who actually did the spying. that right was just taken away. With it went all the information which would be needed to criminally prosecute Bush. (wrong legal terms I'm using, sorry.)

Everything was in those civil court cases. They are quashed, our civil rights are quashed.

In 4.5 years (interesting timing, no?) the rest will be revisited.

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. How, exactly, would anybody sue if there was no immunity?

To file a suit you must claim to be an injured party. Nobody knows who was spied on, so nobody can claim that they are the injured parties. That information is not available through FOIA because of National Security. Therefore, nobody WILL know who was spied on.

The ONLY route to that information would be through successful prosecution of those government officials who ordered the illegal wiretaps. As I see it, the prosecution would have to come first - which would then make suing the telecoms redundant.

[robinlynne]

12. wrong. The suits have been going on for years and are all in the higher courts.

The people are winning them. They have proof. Every suit against the gov't was canned for lack of standing.(meaning you ahve to sue the phoen companie, NOT the gov't.) the suits against the phone companies were the only way to get the information out.

After winning those, lawsuits could be brought against the gov't.

[librechik]

6. since these lawsuits (they vote on today)are where citizens tried to make the telecoms accountable

After they are thrown out today, I don't see how that will happen. Obama's attorney general can do as thorough investigation as he wants, he won't bring charges because A the statute of limitations runs out in April 09 and he won't have time to complete the investigation before he must charge the felons, and B because after today there will be no political will to go further.

If a criminal case ever did make it to the federal courts, of course it would inevitably be found unConstitutional. However, in real life, that won't happen. They won't revisit this issue and they will claim it was all settled by this vote.

Prepare to have your calls and internet sessions eavesdropped on without any recourse. WE will be the only criminals found through this system, as it inevitably expands and is used against us for other stuff besides "terrorism." Anything they can find.

[earth mom]

7. Yep, they aren't looking for terrorists, they are looking to TERRORIZE. nt

[Dave From Canada]

8. I don't get the hostility and vilianizing of the telecom companies.

They employ thousands of workers. At a time of economic turmoil, why does there seem to be such a sentiment to make them pay, which will only end up hurting the average worker? As I see it, if they did resort to unconstitutional activities, it's because of the current administration probably putting pressure, and in essence, twisting their arms. I don't think people should be punished for something that the government (mostly Bush and Cheney) was largely behind. I think in some cases, the telecom companies are the part of the victims as well.

[Breeze54]

10. Here's one good reason -- Censorship !!

Verizon Rejects Text Messages From Pro-Abortion Group

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/27/verizon-rejects-text-mess_n_66082.html

September 27, 2007 07:46 AM

Saying it had the right to block "controversial or unsavory" text messages, Verizon Wireless
has rejected a request from NARAL Pro-Choice America, the abortion rights group, to make
Verizon's mobile network available for a text-message program.

The other leading wireless carriers have accepted the program.

Legal authorities said private companies like Verizon probably have the right
to decide which messages to carry.

Verizon Reverses Course on Abortion Text-Messaging

http://www.privacydigest.com/2007/09/30/verizon+reverses+course+abortion+text+messaging

September 30, 2007 - 9:53pm — MacRonin

Verizon Reverses Course on Abortion Text-Messaging: "If you want to see what the Internet will look like in a few years without net neutrality, you need look no further than this week's stories about Verizon Wireless' attempts to censor messages on its text-message network. Today the telecommunications giant reversed a decision it made last week to reject NARAL Pro-Choice America's request to make a text-message advocacy campaign available on Verizon networks. The program would allow people to sign up for text messages with NARAL by sending a five digit 'short code.' These types of programs have become very popular with activist groups and political candidates.

Earlier, Verizon told NARAL it does not accept programs from any group ‘that seeks to promote an agenda or distribute content that, in its discretion, may be seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our users.’ Never mind that you have to sign up for the program so you don't get unsolicited messages. If Verizon says your program is controversial or unsavory, you can always go elsewhere.

The problem with that philosophy is that 'going elsewhere' is becoming less of an option. As companies gobble other companies to become giant behemoths, competition becomes scarce. The same kind of discrimination against content is happening in the Internet broadband world — in which Verizon is a major player — where there is even less competition, and where the threat of this kind of censorship has even broader implications.

Verizon and AT&T, among others, are spending millions of dollars lobbying Congress for the right to discriminate against content on the Internet it deems controversial, unsavory, or even just contrary to its own business interests. Net neutrality would protect your right to see and hear what you wish on the Internet without your service provider acting as a censor. According to the Verizon and AT&T lobbyists, net neutrality would stifle innovation.

Translation: it would mean we couldn't force you to see only what we want you to see.

So now that Verizon's changed its mind and will allow NARAL's campaign to move forward, does this mean we don’t need to worry? No. Verizon changed its mind this time, but it can change it again at any time. Only a federal policy of nondiscrimination in content will guarantee this doesn’t happen again.

If the Internet is to truly be a powerful force for freedom of expression, we cannot allow big business OR government to choose the content. Today, it’s Verizon shutting out NARAL. Who will it be tomorrow?"

(Read Original Article - Via ACLU Blog - Free Speech.)
http://blog.aclu.org/

[Leopolds Ghost]

14. telecoms must LOSE a suit or else gov't cannot be prosecuted for underlying crime.

Yeah, this is a workers issue... right. :eyes:

Are you bullshitting us??

That's what my lefty city councilman said when he spoke up on behalf
of the cops in a police brutality case. "This is an issue of
protecting workers." The FOP is a union, and he supported unions.
They just "sidn't have the resources" to do any better.

Ever heard of fiduciary obligations to the customer?
You are a customer of the telecoms, you know. You believe that
they shouldn't pay for stealing your information? You ratify
their RIGHT under civil law to steal your information and break
contract if asked to do so by a spy agency?

As a Canadian, I don't expect you to understand the fine points of
the legal system here... such as the fact that telecoms must LOSE
a suit or else gov't cannot be prosecuted for underlying crime.

[dkofos]

11. Yes it could. But it won't.

[Leopolds Ghost]

13. there is no inherent right to sue. BUT THE CURRENT PLAINTIFFS ARE INJURED BY IMMUNITY

So the only people who can legally overturn the retroactive immunity clause are the current plaintiffs, by appealing a decision to throw out the case on grounds that the immunity clause and/or other unseverable related aspect of the law was unconstitutional.

(such as ordering the court to consider a permission slip from the President to be grounds for immunity from legal prosecution, as Nixon and Obama advocate)

[mmonk]

15. The purpose was to take it away from the courts.

So I'm not sure. This is from the ACLU:

Gives the president broad new powers to spy on innocent Americans’ phone calls and emails – even when they have no connection to terrorism. It legalizes mass, untargeted and unwarranted spying on our international phone calls and emails.

· Restricts judicial oversight of the surveillance program. The FISA court will not know who, what or where will actually be monitored, and the government can continue a spying program even after it has been denied by the court.

· Provides retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies for their role in the president’s domestic spying program. The test in the bill is not whether government certifications sent to the companies were actually legal – only whether they were issued.

[brentspeak]

16. Thanks to all who responded