so patriotic, so concerned with protecting their country that they just had to do whatever it was the president asked of them, even if it was against the law. So devout in their patriotism that they must be given immunity for their criminal conduct, because, after all, they were only performing their patriotic duty.

or, maybe not.



Telephone companies have cut off FBI wiretaps used to eavesdrop on suspected criminals because of the bureau's repeated failures to pay phone bills on time.

A Justice Department audit released Thursday blamed the lost connections on the FBI's lax oversight of money used in undercover investigations. Poor supervision of the program also allowed one employee to steal $25,000, the audit said.

In at least one case, a wiretap used in a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act investigation ''was halted due to untimely payment,'' the audit found. FISA wiretaps are used in the government's most sensitive and secretive criminal and intelligence investigations, and allow eavesdropping on suspected terrorists or spies.

''We also found that late payments have resulted in telecommunications carriers actually disconnecting phone lines established to deliver surveillance results to the FBI, resulting in lost evidence,'' according to the audit by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine.


so, it appears that it's not patriotism that spurs on the telecoms, but simply lust for the almighty green. Investigations cut off, evidence lost, because the phone companies weren't getting their money.

some patriots.

down to middle management

try them all for treason

convict them

tie them to a poll and shoot them

it is what we do with traitors, yes?

While not quite as voracious as atpjunkie, I would settle for REAL prison with REAL inmates for a fairly short time, since that's all it would take to reform them, or any other white collar criminal as far as that goes. By the way these are the same phone companies that promised us the world (or at least widespread broadband) if only we would deregulate them. Not at my place yet. Immunity, not only no but *ell no!

wow, crickets chirping.

none of the usual wingnut apologists want to make excuses for this? I'm amazed.

Not really sure what your point is. Are you displease with the feds for guarding against another 9/11 or upset that the telecoms cut off their service and left us exposed and vulnerable?

I'm old enough to have both children and a grandchild. Do I want them to be safe? Of course, but NOT at the price of giving up the freedoms and protection that we need from an over-powerful government (read executive branch) that we have seen lately. There were methods in place using the FISA court to get wiretaps and the law could be changed if necessary to make these easier, but again with an eye towards balancing freedom vs safety. Bottom line, I am not willing for myself nor my offspring to cede the power to the executive branch that we have seen them take under Bush/Cheney to buy what I think is a small increase in safety. If any of you are, that is your business, but I am not.

surely you aren't that stupid?


maybe you haven't specifically posted on the subject, but it's the opinion of this administration, and it's wingnut followers, that the telecoms need immunity from prosecution for breaking the law and illegally wiretapping their customers because they were only doing their patriotic duty as the government asked them to. They had no choice, they had to do what the government wanted, because it was all about keeping America safe and protecting us from terrorism.

But in the real world, you know, the one the rest of us live in, the one where we believe people ought to foollow the laws, seems that doing their patriotic duty doesn't even figure into their reasons for the illegal wiretapping. For if it did, they wouldn't cut it off just because of a few missed payments. If ot's their duty, if it's necessary that they have to do it, then they should keep on doing it, and work with the government to arrange some way to get their money.

But nope, no money, cut it off. So much for the need, so much for the pressing national security implications. They'll put money above national security concerns every single time.

Still think they did what they did for patriotic reasons? Still think they should have immunity?

I can't believe you took the time to type that out. How big is that callous on your forehead?




joe

so patriotic, so concerned with protecting their country that they just had to do whatever it was the president asked of them, even if it was against the law. So devout in their patriotism that they must be given immunity for their criminal conduct, because, after all, they were only performing their patriotic duty.

or, maybe not.





so, it appears that it's not patriotism that spurs on the telecoms, but simply lust for the almighty green. Investigations cut off, evidence lost, because the phone companies weren't getting their money.

some patriots.

like that.

Ya, the government has a lot of us exactly where they want us, rolled over and lying in a fetal position.

surely you aren't that stupid?


maybe you haven't specifically posted on the subject, but it's the opinion of this administration, and it's wingnut followers, that the telecoms need immunity from prosecution for breaking the law and illegally wiretapping their customers because they were only doing their patriotic duty as the government asked them to. They had no choice, they had to do what the government wanted, because it was all about keeping America safe and protecting us from terrorism.

But in the real world, you know, the one the rest of us live in, the one where we believe people ought to foollow the laws, seems that doing their patriotic duty doesn't even figure into their reasons for the illegal wiretapping. For if it did, they wouldn't cut it off just because of a few missed payments. If ot's their duty, if it's necessary that they have to do it, then they should keep on doing it, and work with the government to arrange some way to get their money.

But nope, no money, cut it off. So much for the need, so much for the pressing national security implications. They'll put money above national security concerns every single time.

Still think they did what they did for patriotic reasons? Still think they should have immunity?

RIGHT ON! 100% correct and the majority of the country feels the same way. We will never persuade the 20-25% of the neo-con Shrub BUTT kissing base. They love to use that FEAR, WAR ON TERROR, and 9/11 for everything. What a bunch of wimps!

He might be that stupid :)

Hey Gramps I bet you're old enough to remember Robert Kennedy doing the same thing as you all are accusing Bush of doing. Oh but he wasn't trying to catch terrorists. He was spying on journalists, Martin Luthar King and anyone he thought might be subversive. Was it partiotic then?

why do you suppose FISA was established?

I guess you really are. :rolleyes:




Also, I think that was pretty much ol' J. Edgar's game, not the doings of Bobby Kennedy.

As "Gramps" I guess I have to reply. No, it was not then, although as stated above that was J Edgar's forte, not RFK's. As I said, each person must decide for themselves what they are willing to give up. If your choice is to give up freedoms to the government in return for promises of increased safety, then do so. My choice and vote will go in the opposite direction. My status as "gramps" means that I have seen enough lies by enough politicians of both parties and all stripes in my life that I don't trust any of them not to abuse this power. Having said that, I sincerely believe that Bush/Cheney are in the running for one of the top spots as liars in my lifetime.

What I find rather distressful is the selective nature of your distrust and of your memory. Kennedy was knee deep in the tapping of civilians. Heck, even the peanut farmer had civilians tapped. Yet Bush is now the only president to do such a thing. Hey were you this upset when Hillary and Bubba stole all of those FBI files?