3 ms·
> moves the goalposts to suggest Obama abandoned that objective by casting a yea vote that indemnified telcos for (a) lawful surveillance (b) conducted under th
by noibl 14y ago
> moves the goalposts to suggest Obama abandoned that objective by casting a yea vote that indemnified telcos for (a) lawful surveillance (b) conducted under the color of an entirely new statute in (c) a bill that mostly consisted of new limitations on FISA surveillance powers.
On (a), how or why can one be indemnified for lawful activity?
The bill to which Greenwald refers does in fact grant retroactive immunity from lawsuits seeking to show that the telco's participation was unlawful.[1] Such lawsuits would occur because other parties to the activity are protected by other mechanisms.
On (b), not sure what you mean by 'under the color of'. Hopefully not a reference to retroactive legalisation.
(c) doesn't seem at all relevant to the specific point here.
[1] http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL34600.pdf http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL34600.pdf
- tptacek 14y agoI don't know how to respond to this comment, but would like to point out that these CRS memos (I've read a bunch of them today) are so. great. We really need to bump up the budget for the CRS.
- noibl 14y agoThat's OK. Sneering non-responses are also informative.
- tptacek 14y agoI hope you're not saying I provided a sneering response. I was trying to express appreciation for the link you offered.
- noibl 14y agoThanks for clarifying. In the context of not addressing the question over Greenwald's credibility it looked sarcastic to me. You see, it's very confusing if you express appreciation for something that seems to contradict your point but then don't address the contradiction.