Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (26175)	2/18/2008 3:49:44 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

"Why would the President want to sign off on a retroactive change in the law that harms US national interests? Telecoms believed they were cooperating with the security interests of the US." Did they 'believe' that they were breaking the law? (Or, is 'ignorance of the law' still not an excuse? :-) Hint: what did their internal counsels advise? What 'legal assurances' were given by the Feds (if any)? NONE of those answers will EVER be known by the American public unless at least an attempt is made to have judicial review of the administration's (possibly illegal) actions.... Hint: at least one of the big telecoms (Qwest) answered the administration by saying, (in effect), 'no way, this request is ILLEGAL'. 'But we really, really WANT to be a cooperative part of the WOT... so please come to us with a FISA-authorized subpoena and we will be HAPPY to comply with all requests.' (But then the administration NEVER CAME BACK with a request to Quest... giving the lie to it's claims later that the cooperation was 'all that important'.) Re: "Retroactive immunity just recognizes the spirit of the agreements." Then the administration would have nothing to fear from judicial review (if they weren't violating American's constitutional rights), right?