Comments on: Keith Sees FISA Loophole for Criminal Prosecution

By: rac breakdown recovery uk

rac breakdown recovery uk — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:24:23 +0000

very hard to hear.

By: rac breakdown recovery uk

rac breakdown recovery uk — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:24:23 +0000

very hard to hear.

By: Andrew Yu-Jen Wang

Andrew Yu-Jen Wang — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 00:02:17 +0000

George W. Bush’s sentence-by-sentence speaking skills are deteriorating. Apparently, this may be due to a mental illness called “presenile dementia.” Bush may or may not be secretly still drinking heavily. Bush lied, and thousands of people died. Bush suffers from narcissism and megalomania. Moreover, Bush has been arrested three times. Bush was arrested for disorderly conduct. Bush was arrested for stealing. Bush was also arrested for a serious crime—driving under the influence of alcohol. There are reasons to believe that Bush suffers from a learning disability. Bush’s learning disability would explain a lot of things. All in all, Bush is a severely mentally ill individual. Bush is not fit to be the president of the United States.

Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA

By: PS

PS — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 17:55:02 +0000

Here is my concern about the criminal liability. As wrong as it may be for the telecoms to have been wiretapping people, they did it at the behest of the government, who gave them the old “if you don't do it, people will die” stuff. Isn't it the height of gall for the government to ask a private company to engage in illegal activity for the sake of national security and then to criminally prosecute them once they do? More importantly, isn't this an iron-clad entrapment defense?

By: CPL

CPL — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 12:16:54 +0000

Why can't there be both civil and criminal prosecution for violation of the 4th Amendment?

What the telecos want is not to be punished for doing something the government ordered them to do. OTOH, the telecos could always refuse to do business with the Feds, but the Feds would have retaliated in some fashion. Some telecos are simply refusing to do business with the Feds, because the Feds not only placed them in liability, but stuck them with the check and haven't paid the bill.

Obama taught Constitutional Law, didn't he? Then he should know that the protection of the 4th Amendment is not a political football he can dodge. If he's going to uphold the Constitution (as stated in the POTUS oath of office), the least he can do is protect it before he takes office.

He may have denounced the DLC, but he's sure engaging in their strategies and that's giving me pain.

By: jon

jon — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 04:59:41 +0000

The bill in the Senate expands warrantless wiretapping and grants civil immunity to the telcos, meaning that the various suits moving ahead would be stopped cold in their tracks. Olbermann's narrow focus on the possibility of potential future criminal prosecution *if* Bush doesn't issue pardons (or I suppose if the pardons get overturned by the Supreme Court) seems a bit of a red herring right now.

If you're an Obama supporter who would like to urge him to do the right thing on FISA, please consider joining the Senator Obama - Please, No Telecom Immunity and Get FISA Right group on my.barackobama.com. It's now over 6000 members -- already the fifth largest broup on myBO -- and continuing to grow rapidly.

And we've got a wiki!

jon

By: ibeching

ibeching — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 02:46:41 +0000

it's hard to hear, but keith is totally right

By: AnthonyMason2k6

AnthonyMason2k6 — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 01:57:35 +0000

Barack cant run away from this! he's going to have to take some difficult stances every once in a while.

By: Kellybelle

Kellybelle — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 01:31:23 +0000

Love the new look. Good stuff.

By: taritac

taritac — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 01:04:12 +0000

What aren't you with?

By: CraigHickman

CraigHickman — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:48:24 +0000

I'm not with Keith on this one. Not by a longshot.