Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Intercettazioni: COme funziona da loro

Per intercettare ci vuole il permesso.   Il governo federale lo ignora
(in nome della guerra al terrorismo), e poi si fa la legge ad persona
che concede l'immunita' ai coplevoli.
http://www.truthout.org/article/congress-poised-grant-telcoms-spying-immunity
Congress Poised to Grant Telcoms Spying Immunity
Thursday 19 June 2008
by: Matt Renner, t r u t h o u t | Report
photo
    After months of negotiations behind closed doors, a supposed
compromise has been reached on an extremely controversial spying bill.
    However, critics charge that the new bill is actually a
capitulation by Democrats who had previously stood up against the Bush
administration and members of their own party.
    The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) update would
amend the spying law which regulates the president's ability to
conduct domestic and international surveillance. The most
controversial aspect of the new legislation is a section which, if
passed, would give retroactive legal cover for telecommunications
companies that may have broken laws and privacy contracts by giving
the government access to customers' records and data.
    "The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a
capitulation," Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) said in a statement
Thursday, adding, "The House and Senate should not be taking up this
bill, which effectively guarantees immunity for telecom companies
alleged to have participated in the President's illegal program, and
which fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home."
    Jim Manley, spokesman for Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada),
struck a different tone but reinforced Feingold's criticism of the
retroactive immunity provision. "Senator Reid believes this version is
better than the bill the Senate passed in February and much better
than the Protect America Act signed by the President last summer, but
he remains opposed to retroactive immunity and is reviewing the bill
in its entirety," Manley said in a statement.
    The section of the bill that would grant immunity is titled
"Protection of Persons Assisting the Government," a title in line with
the argument of the Bush administration and immunity proponents that
retroactive legal protection is needed to ensure future cooperation of
private business with the intelligence apparatus. This argument falls
flat, according to critics, because the original FISA law included
legal immunity for companies cooperating with surveillance warrants.
Because the Bush administration circumvented the FISA process,
potentially in violation of the law, the telecoms could have refused
to comply until a warrant was issued.
    The immunity provision would allow district courts to dismiss
lawsuits against telecoms if the court were to rule that companies
involved had been given assurances by the Bush administration that
their cooperation was legal. One telecom, Qwest Communications,
reportedly refused to cooperate with the administration's spying
program because of legal concerns.
    It is well established that the Bush administration's Department
of Justice gave periodic assurances in writing to telecoms that their
cooperation was legal under the DOJ interpretation of the law.
However, critics charge that the telecoms should have independently
evaluated whether their participation in the warrantless surveillance
that was taking place outside the traditional legal channels was in
fact legal.
    There are approximately forty lawsuits pending against the
telecoms, all of which would probably be dismissed if the current bill
becomes law. Critics of the retroactive immunity provision say that
letting the telecoms off the hook for lawbreaking would be
irresponsible because the extent of potential lawbreaking is not yet
known.
    "Congress is poised to once again pass disastrous surveillance
legislation, now upping the ante with a thinly-veiled giveaway to some
major campaign donors," Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU
Washington Legislative Office, said in a statement Thursday, adding,
"The Hoyer/Bush surveillance deal was clearly written with the
telephone companies and internet providers at the table and for their
benefit. They wanted immunity, and this bill gives it to them."
    The ACLU also criticized the back room dealings which produced
this new compromise bill. "The process by which this deal has come
about has been as secretive as the warrantless wiretapping program it
is seeking to legitimize. While members and organizations who would
seek to fiercely protect the civil liberties of Americans have been
denied a seat at the table, one wonders how present the powerful
telecom lobby has been."
    A previous investigation by Truthout showed that a think tank with
many active donors to the Democratic Party and deep connections to the
telecommunications industry was pushing for the immunity provision.
Thirdway, a self-titled "progressive" think tank, consulted with
Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia), chairman of the Senate
Intelligence Committee and sponsor of the bill containing immunity.
    Rockefeller has been the main proponent of retroactive immunity on
the Democratic side. In October 2007, Wired magazine's Threat Level
blog revealed that Rockefeller began receiving large campaign
contributions from high-level executives in the telecommunication
industry when he became chairman of the Intelligence Committee.
    Because of the unique civil liberties and national security
challenges posed by legislation involving domestic spying, two
committees in the Senate - the Judiciary Committee and the
Intelligence Committee - were tasked with creating a bill that would
keep the spying apparatus of the United States functioning while not
impinging on the right to privacy of American citizens. The Judiciary
Committee drafted a bill that did not include retroactive immunity,
but it was struck down on the Senate floor because a handful of
Democratic senators voted against it.
    Senator Chris Dodd (D-Connecticut) pledged to filibuster any
legislation that included a retroactive immunity provision. His office
could not be immediately reached for comment on the new bill.
    Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick Leahy (D-
Vermont), one of the most fiery opponents of the immunity provision,
blasted the new bill in a statement Thursday. "After months of
negotiations, the legislation unveiled today to replace the so-called
Protect America Act, which Republicans refused to extend, is not a
bill I can support. I have said since the beginning of this debate
that I would oppose a bill that did not provide accountability for
this administration's six years of illegal, warrantless
wiretapping ... I will continue to work to protect all Americans from
the Bush-Cheney administration's rollback of civil liberties of
Americans and disregard for the rule of law. As the Supreme Court
noted last week, 'security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom's
first principles.' We can protect our security while honoring American
values and respecting our freedoms," Leahy's statement said.
    The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on the bill as
soon as Friday. Because of the thin party margins and unanimous
Republican support in Congress, it will only take a handful of
Democratic votes to pass the legislation. The Senate will take up the
bill next week as early as Tuesday.

 che concede l'immunita' ai coplevoli.
Mi fa piacere vedere che in USA (dove il fenomeno delle intercettazioni 
è molto meno canceroso che in Italia) la materia venga trattata con 
cautela. E che opporsi all'abuso di intercettazione sia considerato 
normale, direi doveroso, per un liberal.
Anche quando si parla di bombe, non di trombate.
Db

 cautela.
Si vede che anche l'Inglese non e' il tuo forte.   L'articolo parla di
immunita' garantita per intercettatori che hanno consapevolmente e
ripetutamente violato la legge.
GT

 GT

 ripetutamente violato la legge.
Keywords: legge, articolo.
Db

luno...@gmail.com
 wrote:


Chi ha mai considerato Bush un garantista?
Torrieri, oggi sei particolarmente confuso (e sgrammaticato).
Db

 >>è molto meno canceroso che in Italia) la materia venga trattata con


 Il governo e' una persona giuridica.  
Quindi ogni legge che riguardi il governo č una "legge ad persona" (rotfl).
Mi parevi confuso, ma  forse č peggio.
Db

 Db

 La legge non riguarda il governo, ma le telecom.  
Quindi ogni legge che riguardi aziende e/o governi (persone giuridiche) 
e una legge "ad persona" (rotfl)?
E' il capolinea della cazzata, Torry.
Puoi scendere.
Db

 Db

 Assolutamente.  N
Impara a perdere con dignità.
Db

 ripetutamente violato la legge.
non capisco di cosa ti stupisci, al craxiano di ferro piace molto chi
se ne frega della legge, molto di più di chi segue la legge per
intercettare i suoi amichetti craxiani e berlusconiani mentre si
vantano al telefono dei propri crimini

 Quindi ogni legge che riguardi il governo è una "legge ad persona" (rotfl).
A questo punto, anche la Costituzione lo e'. Per esempio e' piena di
articoli che dicono cosa puo' e non puo' fare il Presidente :-)
Ciao
R.

Hepatoklastes wrote:

Vergogna!!!
Db
--


il Presidente è una persona specifica o una carica politica?

 il Presidente è una persona specifica o una carica politica?
Era una battuta, non hai visto la faccina?
R.