Just So You Don't Think I'm Biased

[Epsilon]

This is some retarded bullshit here.

I can almost see exempting them from criminal prosecution OR civil prosecution. One or the other. But both? No, people need to learn that "just because
the government asks you to do it" does not mean "get out of punishment free"

Yes, even if this would be a bad idea in the current economic market. This is especially important now that it has been revealed the majority of the spying was
being done on domestic media outlets.

-------------------

Epsilon

[Fidoohki]

I disagree. If a cop that is occupied with another matter orders me to break into

someone's house because it is in fire and I refuse I'm at least morally responsible

if anyone dies on account of it. Also if I agree and haul someone out I shouldn't be

sued by that person on account I was under order. Now they could sue the police

for giving the order but I'm protected.

The same applies to the tele groups. They went on good faith that they were not

breaking the law and if they were it was a matter of national security. Also they didin't

want to be the 'ones that let the terrorist kill people' . Now I think people could sue the

goverment but not the companies that complied since it was the goverment that ordered

it.

[Wiregeek]

I think the telcos should be just as liable for damages as the government, since both parties are in violation of the Constitution
"No can brain today. Want cheezeburger."
From NGE: Nobody Dies, by Gregg Landsman
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5579457/1/NGE_Nobody_Dies

[Epsilon]

Fidoohki wrote:

---

I disagree. If a cop that is occupied with another matter orders me to break into


someone's house because it is in fire and I refuse I'm at least morally responsible


if anyone dies on account of it. Also if I agree and haul someone out I shouldn't be


sued by that person on account I was under order. Now they could sue the police


for giving the order but I'm protected.

1: A cop is never going to order you to run into a burning building because that is insane and any cop who did so would be
stripped of his badge. The same as if a cop ordered you to go rush at a man spraying a macine gun into a crowd.

2: What the telecoms did was not the equivalent of running into a urning building and shame on you for suggesting there is any equivalence. What the telecoms
did was the equivalent of "If a Cop ordered you to go break into someone's house and steal incriminating evidence from your closet because he can not
get a legal warrant". At that point the cop is facinfg criminal charges and you should face civil charges and possibly criminal charges as well.

3: The "I was just following orders" defense is bullshit.

---------------

Epsilon

[Fidoohki]

1: A cop is never going to order you to run into a burning building because that is insane and any cop who did so would be stripped of his
badge. The same as if a cop ordered you to go rush at a man spraying a macine gun into a crowd.

It's a hypothetical situation and it was meant as an extreme scenario. A lot would have to

go wrong for it to reach that point. However, the main point is simple: Is the world supposed

to live in a ' I can't help I might get sued.' society? beccause that seems to be what you want...

and for the record, if it provided enough of a distraction to save others then I might charge

a machine gun wielding make under orders. To be punished because I did and survived is

ridiculous.

2: What the telecoms did was not the equivalent of running into a urning building and shame on you for suggesting there is any equivalence. What the telecoms
did was the equivalent of "If a Cop ordered you to go break into someone's house and steal incriminating evidence from your closet because he can
not get a legal warrant". At that point the cop is facinfg criminal charges and you should face civil charges and possibly criminal charges as well.

That wasn't it. They were tracking foreign calls that could have been plotting another 9/11

type event. which is a pretty close analogy depending on your point of view.I, for one, am

glad these Telecom companies decided not to roll the dice and potentially risk innocent

people lives over inconviencing some people. I think our disagreement comes down to

perspective. I see this as a war which means normal rules have to change. You might see it

as a police matter where the rules can't change. *shrugs*

3: The "I was just following orders" defense is bullshit

I think it's a fine line between that defense being bs or not. it has to be wieghed on

a case by case basis. Just like any other defense.

[robkelk]

It's a hypothetical situation and it was meant as an extreme scenario.

It's a bad scenario.

The first thing they teach people in first-aid classes nowadays is "don't put yourself in danger to help somebody else." Nobody's going to ask somebody else to break into a burning building, because that would put the person being asked in danger.

I see this as a war which means normal rules have to change.

If it's a war, then follow the Geneva Conventions.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Epsilon]

Fidoohki wrote:

---

I see this as a war which means normal rules have to change.

No, not they do NOT fucking change.

I will quote a far more erudite man then I:

"If you abandon your values the first time you have trouble they aren't values, they're HOBBIES!"

--------------------

Epsilon

PS: You are a terrible human being.

[Black Aeronaut]

Here's one you guys probably didn't think of.

Teleco is approached for wiretapping. Teleco refuses. Teleco is charged with obstruction of justice, and legally so under the Bush Administration. Any
questions?

[robkelk]

Teleco is approached for wiretapping. Teleco refuses. Teleco is charged with obstruction of justice, and legally so under the Bush Administration. Any questions?

Did anybody present the telco with a warrant?

(As I understand it, "obstruction of justice" in this sort of case requires that the obstructor refuse to comply with a warrant. Also as I understand it, no warrants were obtained or presented in these particular cases. Are either of those points of understanding incorrect?)
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Fidoohki]

No, not they do NOT fucking change.




I will quote a far more erudite man then I:




"If you abandon your values the first time you have trouble they aren't values, they're HOBBIES!"

let me reply with a question:

Are your values worth more than a innocent human life? It is an ethical debate that I bet alot of people

have been having.. well those that are honest with themselves anyway.

I also want to say that it's easy for us to debate this but we aren't the ones that have to live with the consequences

of our choices. Noone would hold us accountable if we were wrong.....

[Black Aeronaut]

robkelk wrote:

---

Did anybody present the telco with a warrant?




(As I understand it, "obstruction of justice" in this sort of case requires that the obstructor refuse to comply with a warrant. Also as I
understand it, no warrants were obtained or presented in these particular cases. Are either of those points of understanding incorrect?)

As I understand the Patriot Act, you don't even need a warrant, which is what's got a lot of people up in arms about it. The shit's
as blatantly unConstitutional as you can get. Supposedly this let's you get to the 'Bad Guys' before they even realize that you're on to them,
which is BS. If you can't find enough eveidence on them to warrant wire-tapping, then how the heck do you think you're going to get anything better by
tapping them without said evidence? They're obviously doing their jobs well enough to encode everything, including whispered little phone calls.

So, that said, it's in a bit of a gray area. Could the Telecos still be charged with obstruction of justice? Perhaps they accuse the Telecos of aiding and
abetting the terrorists they're supposedly after?

[Epsilon]

blackaeronaut wrote:

---

Here's one you guys probably didn't think of.




Teleco is approached for wiretapping. Teleco refuses. Teleco is charged with obstruction of justice, and legally so under the Bush Administration. Any
questions?

Then you appeal the charges on constitutional grounds, the supreme court throws the warrantless wiretaping law (and maybe a lot of the Patriot Act
with it) in the garbage and everyone is happy.

-----------------

Epsilon

[Epsilon]

Fidoohki wrote:

---

Are your values worth more than a innocent human life?

This is a false dichotomy. There has been no proof that this warrantless wiretapping was doing any good on stopping terrorism and since proof has
come out that the major target of this grossly illegal and unethical conduct was the media then I can't see how you can defend it on those
grounds.

The "ticking time bomb" bullshit is just that, bullshit. It is manufactured by right wing hawks who don't have values to
compromise. They don't care about innocent life, they just care about grabbing more power for themselves. They talk about innocent lives because that how
they can sell it to people who aren't brave enough to stand up for their rights. They sell it by scaring you. For crying out loud, you managed to survive
seventy years in a land without the Patriot Act and illegal wiretaps. Don't give me that "the world has changed" bullshit either. The
fundamentals of thw world have not changed. We live in free societies. And part of the price of a free society is that we have to be fucking adults and realise
that the government can not protect us 100% of the time.

To sum up my thougts on the matter: We do not have to choose between our ideals and our safety.

-----------------

Epsilon

[Rev Dark]

Furthermore wiretapping under FISA was not terrbily restrictive. It just had provisions for the required oversight to prevent abuse. You could wiretap
without a warrant (the smoking gun scenario that Fidhooki clings to like a particularly fixated barnacle) you just had to file for a warrant within a set
period of time.

But you were accountable for your actions.

You had to leave a paper trail.

Shayne

[Bob Schroeck]

Which is why Bush did everything he could to get around FISA.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[Fidoohki]

This is a false dichotomy. There has been no proof that this warrantless wiretapping was doing any good on stopping terrorism and since proof has come out
that the major target of this grossly illegal and unethical conduct was the media then I can't see how you can defend it on those
grounds

Because I am seeing it from an early post 9/11 point of view without hindsight to 'correct' it. I'm assuming it was around

that time when it happened because I'm not sure when it happened and I'm not going to waste the time to look it up.

The "ticking time bomb" bullshit is just that, bullshit. It is manufactured by right wing hawks who don't have values to
compromise. They don't care about innocent life, they just care about grabbing more power for themselves. They talk about innocent lives because that how
they can sell it to people who aren't brave enough to stand up for their rights. They sell it by scaring you. For crying out loud, you managed to survive
seventy years in a land without the Patriot Act and illegal wiretaps. Don't give me that "the world has changed" bullshit either. The
fundamentals of thw world have not changed. We live in free societies. And part of the price of a free society is that we have to be fucking adults and
realise that the government can not protect us 100% of the time.

History says that few truly beleived that Pearl Harbor would be attacked until it was. The same could be said for 9/11. Just because

you don't beleive it means it couldn't happen. Now while I realize that the Gov. can't protect me 100% I sure as hell don't want

them to not try because someone might be embaressed or inconvienced.

To sum up my thougts on the matter: We do not have to choose between our ideals and our safety.

I disagree to some extent. I think it is more of what level am I willing to give up my ideals for some security and safety.

[Fidoohki]

Rev Dark wrote:

---

Furthermore wiretapping under FISA was not terrbily restrictive. It just had provisions for the required oversight to prevent abuse. You could wiretap
without a warrant (the smoking gun scenario that Fidhooki clings to like a particularly fixated barnacle) you just had to file for a warrant within a set
period of time.




But you were accountable for your actions.


You had to leave a paper trail.




Shayne

Actually I agree with you on that. The main question on this thread, as I saw it, was Should a third party be punished for doing

something the goverment requests them to do?

[robkelk]

The main question on this thread, as I saw it, was Should a third party be punished for doing something the goverment requests them to do?

If the government asks them to break the law, then yes. "I was just following orders" hasn't been a valid defence since the Nurenburg trials.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Black Aeronaut]

*Shruggs, and adds the list of Teleco's right under 'Diebold' on his list of companies to avoid patronizing.*

Companies that support Bush in the manner that they have really turns my guts.

[Fidoohki]

robkelk wrote:

---

The main question on this thread, as I saw it, was Should a third party be punished for doing something the goverment requests them to do?

If the government asks them to break the law, then yes. "I was just following orders" hasn't been a valid defence since the
Nurenburg trials.

This is not an absolute. I find major differences between helping to commit genocide and what the Telecoms did and if

you can't see that then I seriously have to reconsider the wieght I place your opinion of the world. Now I understand the

'slippery slope' but I think it can be limited. That's my view.

[Rev Dark]

Fidoohki wrote.

Because I am seeing it from an early post 9/11 point of view without hindsight to 'correct' it. I'm assuming it was around


that time when it happened because I'm not sure when it happened and I'm not going to waste the time to look it up.

It is disquieting to see you cleave to a particular postion while admitting to being too bone fucking idle to actually educate yourself on the
position.

Fidoohki also noted

I sure as hell don't want them to not try because someone might be embaressed or inconvienced.

So you are willing to give up the freedom and protection of the Constitution, and are willing to see others also lose that freedom in the process?

One last Fidoohki pearl

Lastly I disagree to some extent. I think it is more of what level am I willing to give up my ideals for some security and safety.

Epicticus said "We must not believe the many, who say that only free people ought to be educated, but we should rather believe the philosophers who say
that only the educated are free." I note this in light of your own unwillingness to educate yourself on the situation. Here are two more quotes worth
noting in regards to your rather craven position.

"The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or
submission."

John Fitzgerald Kennedy

"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."

Benjamin Franklin

And to close off, Thucydides

"The secret of happiness is freedom. The secret of freedom is courage."

If the government asks you to something illegal and/or unconstitutional, then it should be challenged. Openly.

Shayne

[Fidoohki]

Fidoohki wrote.

Because I am seeing it from an early post 9/11 point of view without hindsight to 'correct' it. I'm assuming it was around


that time when it happened because I'm not sure when it happened and I'm not going to waste the time to look it up.

It is disquieting to see you cleave to a particular postion while admitting to being too bone fucking idle to actually educate yourself on the
position.

Fair enough. It was around right after 9/11 and it was at the request of a sitting 'wartime' president. Now since Wartime powers
weren't

really defined til a few years after this happened should they be retroactivey punished for it? I mean this isn't much different than those idiots

in California that want to nullify gay marraiges. Retroactively punishing people because the rules changed is just nuts.

Fidoohki also noted

I sure as hell don't want them to not try because someone might be embaressed or inconvienced.

So you are willing to give up the freedom and protection of the Constitution, and are willing to see others also lose that freedom in the process?

And you are willing to put others at an most likely higher risk of losing their lives just so you won't be inconvienced? I am and have been

talking minor loosening of protections not a total suspension of them. Heavily watched and monitored though.

One last Fidoohki pearl

Lastly I disagree to some extent. I think it is more of what level am I willing to give up my ideals for some security and safety.

Epicticus said "We must not believe the many, who say that only free people ought to be educated, but we should rather believe the philosophers who say
that only the educated are free." I note this in light of your own unwillingness to educate yourself on the situation. Here are two more quotes worth
noting in regards to your rather craven position.

Yes yes. You chastized me before on that. Point made. No need to spike the ball.

"The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or
submission."




John Fitzgerald Kennedy




"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."




Benjamin Franklin

Wise and profound words but cold confort to the loved ones of people that died in an act that might have been prevented

if you didn't want to be 'inconvienced.'

And to close off, Thucydides




"The secret of happiness is freedom. The secret of freedom is courage."




If the government asks you to something illegal and/or unconstitutional, then it should be challenged. Openly

In a time of peace yes but what about war?

[Epsilon]

Fidoohki wrote:

---

Wise and profound words but cold confort to the loved ones of people that died in an act that might have been prevented


if you didn't want to be 'inconvienced.'

The really morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest part of your question is that warrantless wiretapping would have been utterly unneccesary
to prevent the attacks you are so hung up on. "Bin Laden Determined To Attack Within United States", does that title sound familiar? How about the
memos regarding suspected terrorists at flight schools and all the other evidence Bush et al ignored?

Here's the thing, Fidoohki. You are trying to claim some sort of moral high ground, as if obeyin our government is the highest moral conviction we can
have. This is bullshit. In the case of the United States the ultimate authority in your country is not the president, it is the constitution and you should
obey that. Soldiers on the battlefield are required to disobey illegal orders and they have taken oaths of obedience to the government. We, as
citizens, should do no less.

If the president (or prime minster or governor general in my case) ordered me to kill someone I would say NO. If they ordered me to steal, I would say no.

And this isn't just about them being at a wartime footing. This is about teaching a lesson. The lesson is "if the government asks you to do something,
you make damn certain they ahve the actual authority to do so or we will sue your ass into the ground." Punishing the telecoms for this egregious
violation of people's civil rights is not just about punishing them, but about making every telecom company in the future think twice before they
capitulate to demands.

------------

Epsilon

[M Fnord]

In a time of peace yes but what about war?

As a wise man said, if you don't stick to your values when they're being tested - they're not values.
Mr. Fnord interdimensional man of mystery

FenWiki - Your One-Stop Shop for Fenspace Information

"I. Drink. Your. NERDRAGE!"

[robkelk]

I find major differences between helping to commit genocide and what the Telecoms did and if you can't see that then I seriously have to reconsider the wieght I place your opinion of the world.

I would appreciate it if you were to refrain from ad hominen statements, please.

I would also appreciate it if you would take a few minutes to learn exactly what crimes were prosecuted at Nuremberg. (Here's a place to start looking: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project ... COUNT.html]the University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC) School of Law's summary of the trials. Note how far down the list of charges the genocide charges are.)

I see no moral difference between "mistreatment of prisoners of war" and "warrantless surveillance of a media organization", especially considering how some governments view the media. But that's my opinion...

Edit: Not related to the above, I should also say that I respect your willingness to stand by your view and defend it here in the face of mounting opposition (including from me). That's a rare quality nowadays. (And now I'll refrain from ad hominen statements, too.)
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012