Democrats, Obama roll over: FISA bill passed by Senate

[Yogi]

All quotes that do not contain an actual attempt at an argument have been snipped.

Not me, sweet little pixie - I didn't read about Nixon and Watergate, I remember it as it unfolded. Despite that, I am intelligent enough to know that while politicians can and do lie not everything they say is a lie. Not every campaign promise is kept, not everyone SHOULD be kept.

Aaaaaand how do we tell which is a lie and which is the truth? We see how he actually votes!!

Motivations matter, too. Or else parents who get their kids vaccinated would be arrested for abusing their children by causing deliberate pain.

This may shock someone of your paltry life experience, but circumstances can and do change. Sometimes what made sense six months ago no longer does.

Sure! Six months ago, he needed to lean left in order to get the nomination. Now he needs to lean center in order to get the election. It's textbook politics.

Again, you are against any and all compromise. Clearly, you have never been married or you would realize how untenable a position that is in life.

That is a lie. Fail.

And your no voting will buy you... what?

Fine, vote no on Iraq funding - and you will everything you want vetoed. That accomplishes... what? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Except, as Commander in Chief the PotUS can order the troops into Iraq funding or no, and then you have to explain to your constituents why the military hasn't the money to provide proper body armor. Thus, not only have you not accomplished any of your agenda, your constituents now hate you because their children are coming home in flag-draped boxes.

Don't tell me you've bought into the Republican scare tactics of "they'll abandon our troops!!" Voting to end the Iraq war has ALWAYS been a viable way to stop the conflict, just that the Democrats keep voting for more money without strings attached.

Who?

Google is your friend.

Though perhaps your point is that a third party candidate is going to have an extremely hard time getting elected.

This must be your first election cycle... child, voter turn out for the primaries was at record levels. The electorate is MUCH more energized than usual. Granted, that's still not much, but it again displays your appalling ignorance.

Which is pretty much my entire point.

What boggles my mind is that you are so convinced that Obama is so horrific when we have others so very much worse than he is... yet you still are not certain where you stand on this. There is nothing wrong with disliking Obama, or any other candidate, but if your knee was jerking any harder there would be a dent in your forehead.

"America is fucked because both candidates suck" and "Obama is the better candidate" isn't mutually exclusive. Hence, the debate if I should vote for the one that sucks less, or vote for someone who doesn't suck.

And, as bad off as our country is - and I have no doubt that this is the worst we've seen in my lifetime and my Depression-era parents have told me that it is starting to resemble the state they remember from childhood - we are still not as bad off as many in this world today, and far from the worst possible scenarios. Although I have occasionally made noises about fleeing to Canada I have not made any serious inquiries in that direction as I would much rather stay here and fix the problems than run away. You are, like many in the US, a spoiled brat with no historical perspective or ability to compare your current inconveniences with a true disaster.

I suppose I have slightly more options, since I know two languages besides English (though far from "native speaker" level), and have friends in other countries. Therefore if things truly go south I have other places I can be. While I admit that America has been doing very well the past few decades, most people who study history (and therefore have historical perspective) can see disturbing parallels between America's current state and several other Ancient cultures that didn't last too long after that. Not saying that America is going to collapse into anarchy but, as it says on my prospectus, past gains are not indicative of future performance.

Yes, the recent legislation was a slap at the 4th amendment but it was hardly the worst violation of the Bill of Rights to ever pass Clowngress, and while disturbing I feel the unlawful and indefinite detention of individuals without recourse to trial or even hearing, or even a notification to relatives that they are being held, is FAR more disturbing and dangerous than someone listening in on phone conversations. That is in no way approval of eavesdropping, just that, unlike you, I do not see the world in stark black and white but am capable of discerning shades of grey.

"Hey FISA's not so bad, we've passed worse!!" Not sure if that was supposed to help your argument or not.

No, asshat, you said:

Look at George W. Bush! He doesn't compromise and he is certainly a fool. He also gets

all of

his stuff passed by the Democrats in Congress who "compromise" on the issues.

Bush does not get everything he wants, therefore YOU fail, you skanky cunt.

Let's review here. I said that Obama should not have voted for FISA. You said that compromise is required. I said that what Obama and the Democrats did was hardly compromise, and that George W. Bush was able to force the Democrats to cave on several occasions, thereby proving that compromise is not absolutely necessary, certainly not for a bill like this. I think this is the point where your arguments diverge into imagination land.

And yes, Bush DOES compromise - though you'll never hear the words from his lips. A case in point is the extension of unemployment benefits to which he was adamantly opposed. He yielded on that because the Democrats got it attached to the funding for his precious little killing-fest in Iraq. That's a compromise you donkey-felcher.

Again, the fact that there are existing situations where George W. Bush compromised does not negate the fact that there are occasions where he does NOT compromise and still succeeds. I have never said that compromise was bad on every situation. I merely said I dislike candidates who save in on things like telecom immunity for the FISA bill.


I'll give your one more chance to argue against my actual arguments instead of fantasy strawmen. I post here because, supposedly, I can have intelligent debates that are worth my time. Please don't disappoint me.

[Master of Ossus]

I'm not familiar with the North Hollywood shootout beyond Wikipedia so I might have tripped up interpreting the analogy, but I assumed the gist of your quote was that some technically illegal things (skipping the waiting period) might be acceptable during an emergency. I certainly wouldn't demand the policemen go through the waiting period during that incident if they needed heavier weaponry now.

Precisely. Nearby gunstore owners provided police officers with rifles and ammunition in an effort to help them cope with the body armored bank robbers, perhaps saving lives in the process. No state of emergency was declared, nor were any instructions issued to the companies involved to provide the officers with the weapons.

You're suggesting that the President has the authority to declare an authoritarian state of emergency bypassing all laws for an indefinite amount of time? That's what "repeatedly told the telecos that this was a national emergency" suggests. In early 2004, it was still ok to explicitly break the law because of terror threats stemming from 9/11? Doesn't sound like the rule of law to me.

I don't think that the President should have that authority, but I don't think the telecommunications companies had any authority to say that something wasn't an emergency when officials from the Executive Branch say that there is one. They do not have the authority to say, "Nah! That's not an emergency."

[Elfdart]

You do realize that under 1978 FISA law, the feds could have started wiretaps without a warrant for up to 72 hours, provided they requested (and got) a warrant before the 72 hours were up, don't you? Regular police can get search warrants in a matter of minutes, thanks to the fax machine. But feds can't get get hold of a FISA court judge in THREE DAYS? You're deliberately jerking us off, aren't you?

The police in the L.A. shootings didn't have any problem convincing the gun stores to let them borrow rifles because there was automatic gunfire going on right outside. It really was an emergency, just as police can enter a private home without a warrant if they (or the neighbors) hear gunshots, screaming, etc. Not that it matters, since this is apples and something that's not even fruit. Policemen in the middle of a firefight aren't remotely comparable to feds who are looking to wiretap someone (assuming they're telling the truth) in order to acquire information. If it's an emergency, why bother wiretapping a suspect? Arrest him! If they have the luxury of time to allow him to call and e-mail others, they have more than enough time to get approval from the most rubber-stamp court ever created.

[Master of Ossus]

You do realize that under 1978 FISA law, the feds could have started wiretaps without a warrant for up to 72 hours, provided they requested (and got) a warrant before the 72 hours were up, don't you? Regular police can get search warrants in a matter of minutes, thanks to the fax machine. But feds can't get get hold of a FISA court judge in THREE DAYS? You're deliberately jerking us off, aren't you?

Which is just a great dodge of the central point: whether or not it's hard for the federal government to do something does not mean that we should expose companies to liability for following federal instructions.

The police in the L.A. shootings didn't have any problem convincing the gun stores to let them borrow rifles because there was automatic gunfire going on right outside. It really was an emergency, just as police can enter a private home without a warrant if they (or the neighbors) hear gunshots, screaming, etc.

Which is explicitly provided for in the laws of our country. Please point to the statute, caselaw, regulation, etc. where gunstore owners are allowed to disregard the waiting period for handing out firearms at their own prerogative.

Not that it matters, since this is apples and something that's not even fruit. Policemen in the middle of a firefight aren't remotely comparable to feds who are looking to wiretap someone (assuming they're telling the truth) in order to acquire information. If it's an emergency, why bother wiretapping a suspect? Arrest him! If they have the luxury of time to allow him to call and e-mail others, they have more than enough time to get approval from the most rubber-stamp court ever created.

And, again, an individual company does not have the authority to decide what is a real emergency or not. That determination is made by the executive branch. That you disagree with the executive branch about whether or not something is an emergency is cute, but it doesn't mean that you should ignore their instructions. I see that you have elected yourself as the arbiter as to what is and is not an emergency. I had assumed, under the laws of our country, that this was an executive branch decision. My mistake.

[General Zod]

I don't think that the President should have that authority, but I don't think the telecommunications companies had any authority to say that something wasn't an emergency when officials from the Executive Branch say that there is one. They do not have the authority to say, "Nah! That's not an emergency."

So why exactly are mega-corps allowed to get off with the "Just following orders" defense if that doesn't work for soldiers?

[Patrick Degan]

And, again, an individual company does not have the authority to decide what is a real emergency or not. That determination is made by the executive branch. That you disagree with the executive branch about whether or not something is an emergency is cute, but it doesn't mean that you should ignore their instructions. I see that you have elected yourself as the arbiter as to what is and is not an emergency. I had assumed, under the laws of our country, that this was an executive branch decision. My mistake.

The company does has a legal obligation to not participate in an illegal act, no matter who's telling them to do it. "I was just following orders" isn't a valid defence.

[Glocksman]

And, again, an individual company does not have the authority to decide what is a real emergency or not. That determination is made by the executive branch. That you disagree with the executive branch about whether or not something is an emergency is cute, but it doesn't mean that you should ignore their instructions. I see that you have elected yourself as the arbiter as to what is and is not an emergency. I had assumed, under the laws of our country, that this was an executive branch decision. My mistake.

The company does has a legal obligation to not participate in an illegal act, no matter who's telling them to do it. "I was just following orders" isn't a valid defence.

In a way it is because the original FISA act provided for a 'good faith' defense for the private entities being sued or prosecuted.
However, to use that defense, they'd have to provide documentation incriminating the leadership in both parties who knew about this bullshit and stayed silent.

But we all know that protecting the likes of Steny Hoyer and Jay Rockefeller is more important than the Bill of Rights?
So why do you hate America?

[Durandal]

You know, I wonder if the state of California could bring charges against AT&T for illegal surveillance. After all, it's against the law in this state to record a conversation without the consent of both parties involved, and the immunity only covers civil court.

I'm not from California, but I'm interning in Washington and I might run into a couple of people with the ACLU tomorrow (though they might not be lawyers, just lobbyists and interns). That sort of thing would probably be right up their alley. I'll ask if I get the chance.

I'd laugh my ass off if Ah-nuld came on TV tomorrow holding an arrest warrant in his hand for AT&T's board of execs. Then all the lawyers who signed off on it could be disbarred for unethical conduct. Of course, they'd all just get pardons from President Chimp-for-Brains anyway.

[Broomstick]

All quotes that do not contain an actual attempt at an argument have been snipped.

No - I still see you quoting yourself.

Sure! Six months ago, he needed to lean left in order to get the nomination. Now he needs to lean center in order to get the election. It's textbook politics.

Uh... right - why the fuck are you shocked by this?

Don't tell me you've bought into the Republican scare tactics of "they'll abandon our troops!!" Voting to end the Iraq war has ALWAYS been a viable way to stop the conflict, just that the Democrats keep voting for more money without strings attached.

Fuck you, you little shit - I've been speaking out here against the Iraq war since before it started.

You are a little retard if you think that now we've gotten into this mess that simply packing up and going home isn't going to make a worse pile of shit. There is this concept called "orderly withdrawal" you should look into. If we abruptly pull out then what's left of Iraq is defenseless and it will be divided and raped by the enemies that surround it. Unless you think Turkey carving out the Kurdish regions and Iran attacking it would be good things somehow?

Who?

Google is your friend.

I know what the fuck Google is - my point is that your favored candidate is a nobody.

Though perhaps your point is that a third party candidate is going to have an extremely hard time getting elected.

Yes. Extremely difficult, but not unprecedented - Lincoln was a third party candidate who did extremely well. In fact, after his term his party became a major one and entirely eclipsed the Whigs.

What boggles my mind is that you are so convinced that Obama is so horrific when we have others so very much worse than he is... yet you still are not certain where you stand on this. There is nothing wrong with disliking Obama, or any other candidate, but if your knee was jerking any harder there would be a dent in your forehead.

"America is fucked because both candidates suck" and "Obama is the better candidate" isn't mutually exclusive. Hence, the debate if I should vote for the one that sucks less, or vote for someone who doesn't suck.

The debate is whether you vote or just sit on the sidelines with your thumb up your ass. I'm suspecting you prefer having the thumb up your ass, but we'll see come November.

I suppose I have slightly more options, since I know two languages besides English (though far from "native speaker" level), and have friends in other countries.

What, you think you're the only one that applies to? How nice, you have friends - I've been to other countries, and other continents. Have you even been around the block?

Therefore if things truly go south I have other places I can be.

Run away, coward - so much easier to leave than to try to fix things. So much easier to whine than to try to fix things. Let someone else clean up the mess while you bitch, you sniveling little cunt.

While I admit that America has been doing very well the past few decades, most people who study history (and therefore have historical perspective) can see disturbing parallels between America's current state and several other Ancient cultures that didn't last too long after that. Not saying that America is going to collapse into anarchy but, as it says on my prospectus, past gains are not indicative of future performance.

You mean you read books. How nice. Do you have a degree in history, any formal education in same? Are you even out of high school yet?

I've been hearing "disturbing parallels" for several decades now, but I've got news for you - we ain't Ancient Rome and those parallels are far from exact. Try getting your nose out of the books and actually look around at the world.

Yes, the recent legislation was a slap at the 4th amendment but it was hardly the worst violation of the Bill of Rights to ever pass Clowngress, and while disturbing I feel the unlawful and indefinite detention of individuals without recourse to trial or even hearing, or even a notification to relatives that they are being held, is FAR more disturbing and dangerous than someone listening in on phone conversations. That is in no way approval of eavesdropping, just that, unlike you, I do not see the world in stark black and white but am capable of discerning shades of grey.

"Hey FISA's not so bad, we've passed worse!!" Not sure if that was supposed to help your argument or not.

No, you little shithead, I did NOT say "FISA's not so bad" - the fact is that the illegal detainment of people was NEVER passed, NEVER legislated. Listening in one conversations is bad, but physically removing people from all contact with the outside world with no recourse is a FAR greater threat to our freedoms, and to the freedoms of those outside the US, than the Feds listening in when you talk to aunt Sally. You have no sense of proportion and you'd rather score points than actually face the real world. Much easier to rail against the "telecomms" than to confront the fear of being imprisoned without trial, in solitary confinement for the rest of your life with no recourse. I'm sorry that the wrongness of that is incomprehensible to your little peabrain.

No, asshat, you said:

Look at George W. Bush! He doesn't compromise and he is certainly a fool. He also gets his stuff passed by the Democrats in Congress who "compromise" on the issues.

Bush does not get everything he wants, therefore YOU fail, you skanky cunt.

Let's review here. I said that Obama should not have voted for FISA. You said that compromise is required. I said that what Obama and the Democrats did was hardly compromise, and that George W. Bush was able to force the Democrats to cave on several occasions, thereby proving that compromise is not absolutely necessary, certainly not for a bill like this. I think this is the point where your arguments diverge into imagination land.

Your too fucking stupid to comprehend that

1) No, I do not approve of FISA.
2) I did not say that compromise was required in that specific instance. I said that it is sometimes necessary as a general statement about politics.
3) By your reasoning we should boot the entire Clowngress out into the street. As tempting as that is, I'm not yet convinced that is the most expedient means of dealing with our current problems.

Again, the fact that there are existing situations where George W. Bush compromised does not negate the fact that there are occasions where he does NOT compromise and still succeeds.

OK... sometimes he gets what he wants, sometimes he doesn't. How the fuck does that differ from any other politician?

I'll give your one more chance to argue against my actual arguments

I'm sorry you're too stupid to read plain English.

Please don't disappoint me.

Fuck you, you little mattress stain. Armchair historians such as yourself piss the hell out of me. You live in your parents' basement without need to pay rent or hold down a job and haven't a fucking clue about how to survive in reality. You live under the delusion that idealism is enough to survive. It isn't. I can't wait until reality bitchslaps you upside the head.

Your claim that you wish to debate the issue is bullshit - if you were sincerely you'd be tearing it up with others on this thread, but you aren't. You are instead attempting engage in a pissing contest. Try again when you have an adult-sized penis.

[Patrick Degan]

Yes. Extremely difficult, but not unprecedented - Lincoln was a third party candidate who did extremely well. In fact, after his term his party became a major one and entirely eclipsed the Whigs.

Not quite. The Whig Party disintegrated before the GOP was formed. Lincoln was one of a number of former Whigs (served one term in the House during the time of the Mexican/American War) along with Free Soil Democrats who flocked to its banner in 1856 (the party nominated John C. Fremont for president at its first convention) and Lincoln ran for the Senate against Stephen A. Douglass that year and made himself a national name. By the time Lincoln ran for the presidency in 1860, the Whig Party was long extinct. He won, however, only because the Democrats were split three ways and John Bell of the Constitutional Union party sapped even more votes away from them. And he wasn't even on the ballot in any of the Southern states. The circumstances of the 1860 election were... unique, to say the least.

[Knife]

Lol, I just read this entire thread and Yogi and all are morons if they thought that some renegade and pure ideological movement came up in America and then got corrupted. Is Obama perfect? No, but that was never supposed to be a fucking question.

[LMSx]

I don't think that the President should have that authority, but I don't think the telecommunications companies had any authority to say that something wasn't an emergency when officials from the Executive Branch say that there is one. They do not have the authority to say, "Nah! That's not an emergency."

Yes, they do. It's called common sense, and it's what allows us to differentiate between giving cops guns one day and cooperating in an extensive years-long wiretapping operation. The Executive Branch (President Bush) declared on October 26th, 2001 after Congress passed the Patriot Act that he now had all the tools needed to survey and monitor terrorist communications. QED. At that moment any reasonable person would have concluded that we were now fully capable of fighting terrorism legally.

It's simply impossible to allege that breaking the law was by circumstance necessary for 3 years after President Bush's very own statement directly contradicting it.

[LMSx]

I realized the North Hollywood example is not analogous at all. The cops' only choice was between an illegal action that would save lives or a legal action that would kill people.

But Bush's choice was never between eavesdropping and not eavesdropping. It was between choosing to eavesdrop in compliance with the law, and choosing to eavesdrop illegally. Choosing to illegally eavesdrop would not help stop al Qaeda, because FISA already allows full scale surveillance of suspected terrorists. Choosing to illegally eavesdrop would not save time, because FISA already allowed for agents to start eavesdropping immediately and get warrants later. Choosing to illegally eavesdrop is solely about asserting that the 4th Amendment no longer constrains Bush. The telecoms bought into this twisted perspective despite clearly known penalties for doing so.

If the cops faced an equal situation, it would be between taking the guns now legally and taking the guns now illegally. Both get you the guns now. Which do you choose?

[MKSheppard]

Democrats have been painted by Republicans as soft on national security issues since the 1968 election

And it's the truth? Who built up a massive shield for CONUS against enemy attack to go with the sword of SAC?

Now who dismantled that shield? Yup.

[Edi]

Democrats have been painted by Republicans as soft on national security issues since the 1968 election

And it's the truth? Who built up a massive shield for CONUS against enemy attack to go with the sword of SAC?

Now who dismantled that shield? Yup.

Now who posted another fucking red herring in the thread? Yeah, that's right, it was Shep.

[The Spartan]

Um, Shep? Who was it that has dropped the ball on damn near every terrorist related issue (in fact, every one I can think of off the top of my head) at least as far back as Reagan's election?

Hint: It's not the Democrats I'm thinking of.

[Yogi]

Uh... right - why the fuck are you shocked by this?

See, if you had been actually reading my posts in this thread alone, you would have seen that I have been worried that something like this would happen for quite some time now. Politics as usual is not a winning combination for America, and I would have preferred to see as little of it as possible.

Fuck you, you little shit - I've been speaking out here against the Iraq war since before it started.

You are a little retard if you think that now we've gotten into this mess that simply packing up and going home isn't going to make a worse pile of shit. There is this concept called "orderly withdrawal" you should look into. If we abruptly pull out then what's left of Iraq is defenseless and it will be divided and raped by the enemies that surround it. Unless you think Turkey carving out the Kurdish regions and Iran attacking it would be good things somehow?

But that's not what you said. You said that Bush would actually leave the troops in Iraq with no budget.

Yes. Extremely difficult, but not unprecedented - Lincoln was a third party candidate who did extremely well. In fact, after his term his party became a major one and entirely eclipsed the Whigs.

Hence, why I'm looking into supporting third party candidates. I'm glad we have an understanding.

The debate is whether you vote or just sit on the sidelines with your thumb up your ass. I'm suspecting you prefer having the thumb up your ass, but we'll see come November.

I've never said or implied that I would not be voting, just that it might not be for Obama (and certainly not for McCain).

What, you think you're the only one that applies to? How nice, you have friends - I've been to other countries, and other continents. Have you even been around the block?

Yep. I've been to other countries and have lived in five diffrent states (Texas, Hawaii, California, Wisconsin, and Arkansas).

Run away, coward - so much easier to leave than to try to fix things. So much easier to whine than to try to fix things. Let someone else clean up the mess while you bitch, you sniveling little cunt.

America's not the only country in the world, you know. Leaving your country for a better one is a time honored Americian tradition, though historically America was the "better country."

You mean you read books. How nice. Do you have a degree in history, any formal education in same? Are you even out of high school yet?

Why yes, I'm out of high school. In fact, I went to college, got a degree, and am holding down a steady job. How are you doing with your political science degree?

I've been hearing "disturbing parallels" for several decades now, but I've got news for you - we ain't Ancient Rome and those parallels are far from exact. Try getting your nose out of the books and actually look around at the world.

Awww shucks, and here I thought my book learnin was sumthin useful. Guess that just don't compare to good old lookin about.

No, you little shithead, I did NOT say "FISA's not so bad" - the fact is that the illegal detainment of people was NEVER passed, NEVER legislated. Listening in one conversations is bad, but physically removing people from all contact with the outside world with no recourse is a FAR greater threat to our freedoms, and to the freedoms of those outside the US, than the Feds listening in when you talk to aunt Sally. You have no sense of proportion and you'd rather score points than actually face the real world. Much easier to rail against the "telecomms" than to confront the fear of being imprisoned without trial, in solitary confinement for the rest of your life with no recourse. I'm sorry that the wrongness of that is incomprehensible to your little peabrain.

See, when I say FISA is bad, I do not automatically say everything else is good. It just means I don't like Obama voting for telecom immunity. Don't you get tired of making strawmen by now?

Your too fucking stupid to comprehend that

1) No, I do not approve of FISA.
2) I did not say that compromise was required in that specific instance. I said that it is sometimes necessary as a general statement about politics.

Then why the fuck are you still squawking? Do you enjoy attacking imaginary strawmen?

3) By your reasoning we should boot the entire Clowngress out into the street. As tempting as that is, I'm not yet convinced that is the most expedient means of dealing with our current problems.

If by "boot them out" you mean "massive re-elections" then I actually think that's not a bad idea (I support term limits). Perhaps not all of Congresss, but I do think a shakeup would be beneficial.

OK... sometimes he gets what he wants, sometimes he doesn't. How the fuck does that differ from any other politician?

*facepalm*
That's my point. Actually READ my posts please.


Weeeell, it seems clear there's very little to discuss. Broomstick, feel free to debate my strawmen as much as you like. I'm out.

[Metatwaddle]

You know, I wonder if the state of California could bring charges against AT&T for illegal surveillance. After all, it's against the law in this state to record a conversation without the consent of both parties involved, and the immunity only covers civil court.

I'm not from California, but I'm interning in Washington and I might run into a couple of people with the ACLU tomorrow (though they might not be lawyers, just lobbyists and interns). That sort of thing would probably be right up their alley. I'll ask if I get the chance.

I'd laugh my ass off if Ah-nuld came on TV tomorrow holding an arrest warrant in his hand for AT&T's board of execs. Then all the lawyers who signed off on it could be disbarred for unethical conduct. Of course, they'd all just get pardons from President Chimp-for-Brains anyway.

Yeah, the pardons are probably the biggest hurdle. The only way to go is to wait until Obama is president.

I didn't run into any ACLU people yesterday, so I've been trying to see if anyone's said anything about this online. I found some stuff that I can talk about, but just keep in mind that I'm not a lawyer.

The Electronics Frontier Foundation (along with the ACLU, I think) is bringing a lawsuit to court, claiming that the immunity is unconstitutional. I don't know if they're mostly focusing on the part of Article I which doesn't let Congress pass ex post facto laws, or just on the Fourth Amendment.

I'm not fluent in legalese, but section 605 of the Federal Communications Act of 1934 (link if you want to try to decipher it) seems to make it a federal crime to record a phone conversation unless at least one party to the conversation has consented to it. It's also a crime in all fifty states. California and eleven other states take the additional step of requiring all-party consent. AT&T is based in Texas, which only requires one-party consent, but in this case I don't think that matters because neither party consented to the recording. Anyway, if employees working in California had a part in the recording, you could maybe use California law to prosecute.

There was an interesting little flamewar in liberal blogland regarding the possibility of Obama going after telecoms on criminal charges. John Dean (whom I trust on this issue) said on Countdown that the bill did not prevent anyone from going after the telecoms on criminal charges. Keith Olbermann seemed to want to believe that was what Obama actually was planning to do. Glenn Greenwald of salon.com said, no, that's probably not going to happen, and please stop engaging in apologetics for Obama when he does something assholish. Then Jane Hamsher of salon.com and firedoglake, who had read this whole flamewar, asked John Dean to clarify. He said:

But even if the bill is unclear there is no question the Bush Administration is not going to do anything to the telecoms, so the question is whether a future DOJ could -- and here there is case law protecting the telecoms. But there may be language buried in the bill that protects them as well but it can only be found by reading the bill with a half dozen other laws which I have not yet done.

So there's precedent protecting the telecoms, but unfortunately Dean doesn't cite any cases so we don't really know what that precedent says. Does it apply to prosecution under California state law, or just federal laws? Does it exonerate the criminals focusing on the grounds that there is a new administration in office? (If so, it might be possible to prosecute them in states which have the same governor and/or attorney general that they had when the illegal recording occurred.)

There's also statutes of limitations to consider. The federal statute of limitations is 5 years, I think, from the time that wiretapping occurred. I don't know if that applies to states as well.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Um, Shep? Who was it that has dropped the ball on damn near every terrorist related issue (in fact, every one I can think of off the top of my head) at least as far back as Reagan's election?

Hint: It's not the Democrats I'm thinking of.

Shep doesn't care about terrorists, just Soviet Long-Range Aviation.

[The Spartan]

Shep doesn't care about terrorists, just Soviet Long-Range Aviation.

I know. But since FISA, as you know, has nothing to do whatsoever with that, well...