<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<br><div><div>On Feb 16, 2008, at 12:50 PM, Roland Walker wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">On Feb 15, 2008 8:39 PM, Robert Oppenheim <<a href="mailto:Rob.Oppenheim@comcast.net">Rob.Oppenheim@comcast.net</a>> wrote:</div> <blockquote type="cite"><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Actually, the period covered by the immunity is 5+ years, beginning</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007.</div> </blockquote><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><br></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">The link is broken now, but I assume you have the time span correct,</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">and that I had it wrong.</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><br></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">The period of time covered by the immunity affects the emotional</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">impact, but not the merits, of my argument.</div></blockquote><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>I must respectfully disagree -- for the first several months to a year, the nation was in a state of emotional shock, and was responding without necessarily thinking carefully through consequences. After a few years, and certainly by a few months after the New York Times article that revealed the program and its questionable legality (published December 16, 2005) they should have been seriously questioning their actions, and perhaps seeking to bring themselves in line with the law.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">The broad powers of the Commander-in-Chief with regard to surveillance</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">under Article 2 have indeed been tested in court.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>In addition, the</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">role of Commander-in-Chief prima facie includes surveillance powers,</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">as under his or her command are military surveillance facilities such</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">as you might find at Fort Meade.</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><br></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">I don't believe telecoms should be punished for complying with lawful requests.</div></blockquote><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>I'll just quote Senator Dodd on this one -- he's much more eloquent than me:</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 0.0px; line-height: 18.0px; background-color: #f0f0f0"><font color="#222222" style="font: 12.0px Verdana; color: #222222"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Times" size="4"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px;">"In their telling, when our biggest telecom corporations helped the President spy without a warrant, they were doing their patriotic duty. When they listened to the executive branch and turned over private information, they were doing their patriotic duty.</span></font></font></p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 0.0px; line-height: 18.0px; background-color: #f0f0f0"><font color="#222222" style="font: 12.0px Verdana; color: #222222"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Times" size="4"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px;">When one company gave the NSA a secret eavesdropping room at its own corporate headquarters, it was simply doing its patriotic duty. The President asked, the telecoms answered.</span></font></font></p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 0.0px; line-height: 18.0px; background-color: #f0f0f0"><font color="#222222" style="font: 12.0px Verdana; color: #222222"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Times" size="4"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px;">Shouldn't that be an easy case to prove, Mr. President? The corporations only need to show a judge the authority and the assurances they were given, and they will be in and out of court in 5 minutes. If the telecoms are as defensible as the President says, why doesn't the President let them defend themselves? If the case is so easy to make, why doesn't he let them make it? Why is he standing in the way?" </span></font></font></p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 8.0px 0.0px; line-height: 18.0px; background-color: #f0f0f0"><font color="#222222" style="font: 12.0px Verdana; color: #222222"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Times" size="4"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px;">- Senator Dodd, on telecom amnesty, Dec. 17, 2007</span></font></font></p></div><div>If the law is so clear, the cases will not be a significant burden on the telecoms (perhaps costing less than they've spent trying to influence this legislation). Since we (and, according to our own Representative Hoyer) don't know much about what was asked for and what was provided, I don't think we know whether the law is clear or not.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">The remedy, should you disagree with those actions by the President,</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">is political.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Vote for someone who would make different decisions.</div></blockquote><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>Or to ask your elected representatives to vote to have the courts perform their duties under the constitution, which is how this discussion started.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Alan<br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div></div><br></body></html>