Comments on: NSA cooperation: OK for e-mail, IM companies?
White House wanted immunity for phone companies over possible cooperation with NSA, but new bill also would shield e-mail, IM providers.
White House wanted immunity for phone companies over possible cooperation with NSA, but new bill also would shield e-mail, IM providers.
November 23, 2009 1:03 PM PST
November 23, 2009 12:49 PM PST
November 23, 2009 12:40 PM PST
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
Related quotes
Equipment for this secret government program was put in place in March 2001, accroding to a number of AT&T employees who have given sworn testimony as part of the class action suits against AT&T and Verizon.
In addition, recent court documents filed by the lawyer for former Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio assert that the NSA attempt to strong arm Nacchio into participating in a secret government program that both Nacchio and Qwest's general counsel believed to be illegal under the 1934 Telecommunications Act. When he refused, NSA and other agenencies retaliated by taking away contracts promised to Qwest. That kind of retailiation for refusing to play ball is par for the course for the crooked neocons.
I'm sure immunity will get rammed through as good for America, and things like customer privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures will be deemed "unAmerican" and "helping the tareists". 'Cause remember, if you don't give up your freedom, the tareists win!!!
When's the next bogus terror threat coming along? Oh yeah -- just as soon as Congress is ready to vote on this sham bill.
During the cold war, when the world was supposedly in danger every day from "commies" and nuclear war, we had all these rights. Now, we have nearly lost them all.
Your emotional responses that somehow all of our rights are gone is silly. If you would just read a bit, you'll see why. I suspect you have many more delusions involving Bush, Cheney, Rumsefeld, Haliburton, etc. that could be dealt with by using some Socratic thinking.
Congress can't simply pass a law shielding people from civil rights abuse lawsuits... they'd have to change the constitution, wouldn't they?
P.S. our founding fathers are turning over in their graves.
"give me liberty or give me death"
"those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither"
"live free or die!" - NH motto
Anyone voting for this travesty of legislation will have violated their oath to uphold the Constitution and should be subject to recall or impeachment. There are limits to what the government is allowed to do in our representative democracy. This fundamental understanding is what the whole system is built on. Craven politicians are too quick to throw the baby out with the bath water with this disgraceful legislation.
"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom."
- Dwight Eisenhower
After 9/11, the Democrats complained that Bush didn't "connect the dots". These are the things that the Executive Branch has to to in order to connect the dots and stop attacks. It should be obvious. If something happens and we find out that the government didn't do their job, then people are going to be pissed.
I understand that there should be limits, but it sounds like the liberals want to draw the line such that 1) we'll be unable to stop some attacks and 2) our enemies will have a clear path to know where to exploit the system. In regards to anti-terrorist operations, we are no where near the point where people are worried about being surveilled. I would be much more worried about the attacks on Free Speech in universities than this stuff.
And know he's taking away everyone's rights in an "attempt" to "protect" us, when there has been how many other terrist plots against the nation where other presidents solved without taking away one of our rights. If he can't do it, then he should resign and we can get someone in office who can and will serve the nation. There is something bigger than this "War on Terror," and we need to stop it before it's too late.
"The broad language appears in new legislation that a Senate committee approved by a 13-to-2 vote on Thursday during a meeting closed to the press and public. It enjoys the support of the panel's Democrats and Republicans."
Your email should read tripleBS
AND THE BIGGEST COVERT OP. IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD. ALL I CAN SAY IS THESE GLOBAL ELITE HAVE PUT THEM SELFS ABOVE HUMANITY IN THEIR QUEST TO HAVE A ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT, THEY WILL BE JUDGED BY THEIR CREATOR GOD ALMIGHTY. AND ALL THAT MONEY THEY HAVE AMASSED WILL BURN WITH THEM IN HELL.
Votes for the Greens and other alternatives are NOT why Democrats failed to win the White House, but more importantly, voters FAILING to support these alternative parties is a real contributor to us being in our current mess. People need to vote their conscience, not play games with voting for the slightly-less-bad "choice" among the two most-popular candidates.
You're right: we can't blame it all on the neocon Republicans inhabiting the White House. We have our own lazy, stupid, ignorant, selfish ***** to blame as well.
think
don't be spoonfed
don't be braindead
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
- We're not a police state....
- by Al57 October 22, 2007 8:53 PM PDT
- You guys ought to go to some other countries and look at the lack of freedoms for everyday people.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- try doing things out of the ordinary
- by Fremia October 23, 2007 8:00 AM PDT
- that is all it takes to attract the attention of our government and possibly put you on a terrorist list.
- Like this View reply
Processing -
- Somewhat true, but...
- by fredmenace October 24, 2007 10:49 AM PDT
- Just because we are still better than some other countries, is that a reason to be moving backward? Is this what we should be proud of, that "we're not as bad as North Korea or Cuba or the old Soviet Union...yet"?
- Like this
-
(27 Comments)And they're not right-wing countries, it's the left wingers that are oppressive. Castro, Chavez, the old Soviets, etc.
People flock to the US and try to get away from leftist, liberal countries.
In fact do these things:
1. check out a book on bombs
2. say random destructive words into your cell/ land-line phone
3. make a name for yourself on the internet as a radical/conspiracy theorist
These things are sure to get you on that list.
The problem is that most people perceive that we have appearant freedom, but behind the scenes, that is being eroded.
The quality of information that most people receive is now very bad, so we don't have an informed populace. (Most people aren't smart or industrious enough to do their own research or analysis, instead relying on what they are told by major media outlets and official government proclamations.) It's not just Fox news, it's all the cable channels, all the network news, all the nightly news, the main new websites, nearly all major newspapers: we're routinely being misinformed and important stories are being downplayed, if they're reported on at all. Replacing that is a blend of misinformation and sensationalism meant to distract, outrage (usually over trivial things, like "wardrobe malfunctions", so we don't get outraged over truly important things) and manipulate.
Second, many rights we've taken for granted have been chipped away at, either through public perception campaigns intended to make people think we never had these rights in the first place (the RIAA/MPAA campaigns for their massive distortion of copyright is one example, as is the perception that terroristic threats justify various surveillance or security measures, the perception that corporations should have rights equal or superior to those of people, that investment income should be taxed less heavily than earned income, etc.), or else through covert programs where laws intended to stop precisely this kind of abuse can be flaunted, without anyone knowing about it.
The problem is not so much that we are an active police state right now, but rather that we are putting in place the legal and cultural prerequsites and building the infrastructure for a police state to come. So much so, that the transition to a true police state could possibly come with startling suddenness, when it is too late to easily do anything about it. The biggest problem is that everyone will be left scratching their heads, thinking "but I thought we were a free, democratic, peace-loving country, how and when did it all change?" The answer is that it has all ALREADY changed, but the "new and improved" America hasn't been formally unveiled - it's still in beta testing.