|
jrigeli (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I never said it was under FISA. It's part of US Code Title 18. It is just one of many laws the Telecoms cited as their reason for conducting the wiretaps.
My main point is why blame the Telecoms for the Governments actions. Both the Executive Branch and top leaders(Democrats and Repuplicans) were briefed and knew this was going on.
I believe the calls in question originated from outside the United States.
darkstarownzu (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
However, in order to gain the floor, the Senator exercising rule XIX(a) (The 'Filibuster') would have to yield the floor.
KostaA1982 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
A filibuster is a procedural tactic. Under Senate rule XIX 1(a.) Usually, the Senator addresses the Senate President and requests the floor. The Senate President then grants the Senator who addresses him/her first, the floor. No Senator can interrupt the speaking Senator without his/her consent. In a filibuster, a Senator holds the floor and talks about anything. It's an effort to wear out supporters of a controversial bill and make them retract the bill from the floor.
KostaA1982 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Filibustering Senators can talk about anything ranging from the bill itself to reading recipes out of a cook book (which has been done before._
KostaA1982 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
There is no such number under the FISA Act. The FISA law is as follows:
50 US 35 1801-1871.
Under 1801 (A)(1)(2)(3), the President (through the Attorney General) can conduct a warrant-less wire tap ONLY on foreign powers for the purpose of foreign intelligence gathering. Even then the wire tap is only good for one (1) year.
KostaA1982 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
In order for it to be treason it would have to be a crime, or the planning of a crime, against the Government of the United States. A company refusing to wiretap citizens would not constitute treason. The company had an obligation to request that the government produce a court order. Only when these things are done legally can we ensure that justice would be served. Legally, all evidence complied by the US Government via warrant-less wire tapes would be inadmissible in court.
darkstarownzu (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Let's be clear what we're discussing here. There are two issues, not one.
First, there's the Government ordering telcos to conduct wire taps. Secondly, there's the telcos conducting the wire taps.
If the telco failed to conduct the wire tap, however illegal it may have been, there is a strong legal argument that the CEOs could have been charged with treason.
No where in this debate have Democrats offered legal relief for disobeying a government order.
If the Government orders - you do it!
jrigeli (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Because it's going to cost the Telecoms the time and expense to defend themselves?
You know what else bothers me. Before all this became public, the leadership of the Congress, both Democrats and Republicans were briefed and knew this was going.
Essentialy, the government is making the Telecoms the fall guy.
jrigeli (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Those that were executed were Nazis, they volunteered to become Nazi's, they believed in the cause. The Telecoms were obligated to hand over the info, it was their understanding it was the law.
nitzwalsh86 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
So, is Feinstein more malliable on the issue or is Boxer already on board? |
