Comments on: SJC: FISA — Protect America And The Rule Of Law, Part II http://firedoglake.com/2007/10/31/sjc-fisa-protect-america-and-the-rule-of-law-part-ii/ Firedoglake weblog Wed, 25 Nov 2009 06:13:52 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: radiofreewill http://firedoglake.com/2007/10/31/sjc-fisa-protect-america-and-the-rule-of-law-part-ii/#comment-1068169 radiofreewill Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:56:56 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/10/31/sjc-fisa-protect-america-and-the-rule-of-law-part-ii/#comment-1068169 <p>Hearing Adjourned!</p> Hearing Adjourned!

]]> By: radiofreewill http://firedoglake.com/2007/10/31/sjc-fisa-protect-america-and-the-rule-of-law-part-ii/#comment-1068168 radiofreewill Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:55:50 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/10/31/sjc-fisa-protect-america-and-the-rule-of-law-part-ii/#comment-1068168 <p>Arlen: Philbin - why not indemnification? First, let me commend you for standing up with Mr. Comey. Will there be losses in law suits?</p> <p>Philbin: The problem is that the Telecoms will have to bear the cost of the defense, suffer reputation harm and damage to the US.</p> <p>Arlen: Halpern - what about Art II powers? Does the pres have art 2 powers in this case? </p> <p>Halpern: In extraordinary circumstances - country under direct attack - the pres could take unusual action.</p> Arlen: Philbin – why not indemnification? First, let me commend you for standing up with Mr. Comey. Will there be losses in law suits?

Philbin: The problem is that the Telecoms will have to bear the cost of the defense, suffer reputation harm and damage to the US.

Arlen: Halpern – what about Art II powers? Does the pres have art 2 powers in this case?

Halpern: In extraordinary circumstances – country under direct attack – the pres could take unusual action.

]]> By: radiofreewill http://firedoglake.com/2007/10/31/sjc-fisa-protect-america-and-the-rule-of-law-part-ii/#comment-1068164 radiofreewill Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:50:55 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/10/31/sjc-fisa-protect-america-and-the-rule-of-law-part-ii/#comment-1068164 <p>Halpern: Using a ‘certification’ to compel performance is too vague without specific language guaranteeing FISA protections.</p> <p>DiFi: Philbin, what do you think of that?</p> <p>Philbin: No change is neccessary to the language of certification immunity.</p> <p>Halpern: You need a FISA order before you proceed with the surveillance. Court order - Yes; No Court order - No.</p> <p>Philbin - It’s great to have Court Orders, but you can’t predict when you won’t have the time, so we need to keep the Certification Immunity in place.</p> Halpern: Using a ‘certification’ to compel performance is too vague without specific language guaranteeing FISA protections.

DiFi: Philbin, what do you think of that?

Philbin: No change is neccessary to the language of certification immunity.

Halpern: You need a FISA order before you proceed with the surveillance. Court order – Yes; No Court order – No.

Philbin – It’s great to have Court Orders, but you can’t predict when you won’t have the time, so we need to keep the Certification Immunity in place.

]]> By: radiofreewill http://firedoglake.com/2007/10/31/sjc-fisa-protect-america-and-the-rule-of-law-part-ii/#comment-1068156 radiofreewill Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:44:04 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/10/31/sjc-fisa-protect-america-and-the-rule-of-law-part-ii/#comment-1068156 <p>Halpern: What’s to prevent this bill from being used against a US person? We need to explicity specify that a Warrant is needed for a US person.</p> Halpern: What’s to prevent this bill from being used against a US person? We need to explicity specify that a Warrant is needed for a US person.

]]> By: radiofreewill http://firedoglake.com/2007/10/31/sjc-fisa-protect-america-and-the-rule-of-law-part-ii/#comment-1068155 radiofreewill Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:42:05 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/10/31/sjc-fisa-protect-america-and-the-rule-of-law-part-ii/#comment-1068155 <p>Halpern: This is simple! If you get a court order, say yes. If the president says to do it without citing a valid legal rationale, say no!</p> <p>To declare people or companies un-patriotic for not cooperating with the Pres on blind faith is wrong.</p> Halpern: This is simple! If you get a court order, say yes. If the president says to do it without citing a valid legal rationale, say no!

To declare people or companies un-patriotic for not cooperating with the Pres on blind faith is wrong.

]]> By: Elliott http://firedoglake.com/2007/10/31/sjc-fisa-protect-america-and-the-rule-of-law-part-ii/#comment-1068154 Elliott Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:40:42 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/10/31/sjc-fisa-protect-america-and-the-rule-of-law-part-ii/#comment-1068154 <p><a href="http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/10/31/sjc-fisa-protect-america-and-the-rule-of-law-part-iii/">new thread</a></p> new thread

]]> By: radiofreewill http://firedoglake.com/2007/10/31/sjc-fisa-protect-america-and-the-rule-of-law-part-ii/#comment-1068152 radiofreewill Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:39:16 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/10/31/sjc-fisa-protect-america-and-the-rule-of-law-part-ii/#comment-1068152 <p>Philbin is a True Believer!</p> Philbin is a True Believer!

]]> By: Ann in AZ http://firedoglake.com/2007/10/31/sjc-fisa-protect-america-and-the-rule-of-law-part-ii/#comment-1068150 Ann in AZ Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:38:42 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/10/31/sjc-fisa-protect-america-and-the-rule-of-law-part-ii/#comment-1068150 <p>Why is it not time to bring up the sweeteners the Fed has already distributed to the telecoms that were more compliant in terms of government contracts. For that matter, why shouldn’t it be brought up that the ones that did not play ball (possibly illegally?) with the government are already being punished in terms of government scrutiny of their officers and they are not given government contracts. The bottom line is…too much power concentrated in the hands of the President.</p> Why is it not time to bring up the sweeteners the Fed has already distributed to the telecoms that were more compliant in terms of government contracts. For that matter, why shouldn’t it be brought up that the ones that did not play ball (possibly illegally?) with the government are already being punished in terms of government scrutiny of their officers and they are not given government contracts. The bottom line is…too much power concentrated in the hands of the President.

]]> By: radiofreewill http://firedoglake.com/2007/10/31/sjc-fisa-protect-america-and-the-rule-of-law-part-ii/#comment-1068149 radiofreewill Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:38:31 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/10/31/sjc-fisa-protect-america-and-the-rule-of-law-part-ii/#comment-1068149 <p>Philbin: FISA is a vital tool, at the same time it’s an intrusive tool. It’s hard to balance civil liberties with national security.</p> <p>Two things -</p> <p>1 - We need to be able to monitor people overseas for intelligence success</p> <p>2 - We need to give Immunity to the Telecoms because they were responding to 911 - it’s the right thing to do. The program was authorized by the President and determined to be Legal by the highest members of the Executive Branch (wtf!). Any suits would damage national security - they shouldn’t be allowed to procede. If we don’t provide Immunity to the Telecoms, it will have a chilling effect on other corporations cooperating with the Gov.</p> <p>I agree with the Senate Bill. I disagree that carriers should provide a gate-keeper role of determining if the president’s actions are legal. These companies are Telecoms, not legal review entities of the Admin or Intell communities.</p> <p>The mechanism for oversight of this program is within the Executive Branch. Private suits are not the way to do this.</p> Philbin: FISA is a vital tool, at the same time it’s an intrusive tool. It’s hard to balance civil liberties with national security.

Two things -

1 – We need to be able to monitor people overseas for intelligence success

2 – We need to give Immunity to the Telecoms because they were responding to 911 – it’s the right thing to do. The program was authorized by the President and determined to be Legal by the highest members of the Executive Branch (wtf!). Any suits would damage national security – they shouldn’t be allowed to procede. If we don’t provide Immunity to the Telecoms, it will have a chilling effect on other corporations cooperating with the Gov.

I agree with the Senate Bill. I disagree that carriers should provide a gate-keeper role of determining if the president’s actions are legal. These companies are Telecoms, not legal review entities of the Admin or Intell communities.

The mechanism for oversight of this program is within the Executive Branch. Private suits are not the way to do this.

]]> By: Biodun http://firedoglake.com/2007/10/31/sjc-fisa-protect-america-and-the-rule-of-law-part-ii/#comment-1068148 Biodun Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:38:01 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/10/31/sjc-fisa-protect-america-and-the-rule-of-law-part-ii/#comment-1068148 <p>emptywheel upstairs with new thread…</p> emptywheel upstairs with new thread…

]]>