[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Deep Intel on the Damning New F-35 Report

CONFIRMED “A 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon on 9/11” says Military witnesses on the scene

NEW: Armed man detained at site of Kirk memorial: Report

$200 Silver Is "VERY ATTAINABLE In Coming Rush" Here's Why - Mike Maloney

Trump’s Project 2025 and Big Tech could put 30% of jobs at risk by 2030

Brigitte Macron is going all the way to a U.S. court to prove she’s actually a woman

China's 'Rocket Artillery 360 Mile Range 990 Pound Warhead

FED's $3.5 Billion Gold Margin Call

France Riots: Battle On Streets Of Paris Intensifies After Macron’s New Move Sparks Renewed Violence

Saudi Arabia Pakistan Defence pact agreement explained | Geopolitical Analysis

Fooling Us Badly With Psyops

The Nobel Prize That Proved Einstein Wrong

Put Castor Oil Here Before Bed – The Results After 7 Days Are Shocking

Sounds Like They're Trying to Get Ghislaine Maxwell out of Prison

Mississippi declared a public health emergency over its infant mortality rate (guess why)

Andy Ngo: ANTIFA is a terrorist organization & Trump will need a lot of help to stop them

America Is Reaching A Boiling Point

The Pandemic Of Fake Psychiatric Diagnoses

This Is How People Actually Use ChatGPT, According To New Research

Texas Man Arrested for Threatening NYC's Mamdani

Man puts down ABC's The View on air

Strong 7.8 quake hits Russia's Kamchatka

My Answer To a Liberal Professor. We both See Collapse But..

Cash Jordan: “Set Them Free”... Mob STORMS ICE HQ, Gets CRUSHED By ‘Deportation Battalion’’

Call The Exterminator: Signs Demanding Violence Against Republicans Posted In DC

Crazy Conspiracy Theorist Asks Questions About Vaccines

New owner of CBS coordinated with former Israeli military chief to counter the country's critics,

BEST VIDEO - Questions Concerning Charlie Kirk,

Douglas Macgregor - IT'S BEGUN - The People Are Rising Up!

Marine Sniper: They're Lying About Charlie Kirk's Death and They Know It!


Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: Senate caves to Bush on telecom immunity
Source: Raw Story
URL Source: http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Senat ... s_to_Bush_on_telecom_1018.html
Published: Oct 18, 2007
Author: John Byrne
Post Date: 2007-10-19 09:10:50 by nolu_chan
Keywords: None
Views: 174
Comments: 14

Senate caves to Bush on telecom immunity
10/18/2007 @ 8:04 am
Filed by John Byrne

Despite an intense lobbying effort from privacy groups, the Senate sealed an expected deal this week with President Bush to grant major telecommunications companies -- including Verizon, Comcast and AT&T -- immunity from prosecution for their role in the President's warrantless eavesdropping program if they can "demonstrate to a court that they acted pursuant to a legal directive in helping the government with surveillance in the United States."

The legislation finalizes the deal between Senate Democrats and the Administration over the terms of the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance. It was first reported in the Washington Post.

Earlier, Bush had pushed for immunity to be included in a six-month update to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, but Democrats managed to strip that provision from the bill. He said he'd refuse to sign a bill that doesn't spare prosecution for the telecommunications industry.

News reports have fingered phone companies AT&T and Verizon as major players. Both firms are entangled in several class action lawsuits for handling over millions of customer files. Verizon recently admitted that it had honored requests for information at least 720 times without a court order.

Qwest, another telecommunications firm, allegedly stood up to the Administration and refused to participate, citing doubts about the program's legality.

Republicans who support telecom immunity say that companies were doing the nation good.

"They deserve our thanks, they don't deserve to be hit with a flurry of frivolous lawsuits," House Judiciary Committee ranking Republican Lamar Smith (R-TX) told Dow Jones.

Both the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation have argued in legal briefs that the companies broke the law by participating in an illegal program.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 2.

#2. To: All (#0)

the Senate sealed an expected deal this week with President Bush to grant major telecommunications companies -- including Verizon, Comcast and AT&T -- immunity from prosecution

The Constitution protects certain inalienable rights except when the President authorizes certain people to unlawfully violate said inalienable rights and the Congress passes legislation to retroactively grant immunity to those agents of the government who committed the violation of said inalienable rights, stripping the individual of any legal recourse.

We are merely revisiting the bullcrap legislation of the Civil War era where the Constitution was trampled upon.

Something similar was done during the Lincoln administration in 1863. The legislation went all the way through Congress being referred to in the record as the "Indemnity Act." It was, in fact, an Immunity Act, but was more decorously renamed the "Habeas Corpus Act." Its text declared it to be, "An act relating to habeas corpus, and regulating judicial proceedings in certain cases."

Section 4 of the 1863 Act provided, "Sec 4. And be it further enacted, That any order of the President, or under his authority, made at any time during the existence of the present rebellion, shall be a defense in all courts to any action or prosecution, civil or criminal, pending or to be commenced, for any search, seizure, arrest, or imprisonment, made, done, or committed, or acts omitted to be done, under and by virtue of such order, or under color of any law of Congress; and such defense may be made by special plea, or under the general issue."

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ll/llcg/063/0500/05251435.gif

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ll/llcg/063/0500/05251436.gif

-----

The 1863 act was amended in 1866 because State courts had interpreted its language to require an order of the President himself to be produced in court to claim applicability of the Act. Despite what the law had stated, during the war orders were simply issued by all nature of subordinate officials and acted upon in violation of the Constitution. The amendment covered just about everything and anything.

-----

1866 AMENDMENT TO INDEMNITY ACT OF 1863

Amended 1866 U.S. Stat. at Large, XIV, 46, sec 1.

http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llsl/014/0000/00780046.gif

http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llsl/014/0000/00790047.gif

http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llsl/014/0000/00780046.tif

http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llsl/014/0000/00790047.tif

THIRTY-NINTH CONGEESS. Sess. I. Ch. 80. 1866.

CHAP. LXXX. - An Act to amend an Act entitled "An Act relating to Habeas Corpus, and regulating Judicial Proceedings in certain Cases," approved March third, eighteen hundred and sixty-three.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any search, seizure, arrest, or imprisonment made, or any acts done or omitted to be done during the said rebellion, by any officer or person, under and by virtue of any order, written or verbal, general or special, issued by the President or Secretary of War, or by any military officer of the United States holding the command of the department, district, or place within which such seizure, search, arrest, or imprisonment was made, done, or committed, or any acts were so done, or omitted to be done, either by the person or officer to whom the order was addressed, or for whom it was intended, or by any other person aiding or assisting him therein, shall be held, and are hereby declared, to come within the purview of the act to which this is amendatory, and within the purview of the fourth, fifth, and sixth sections of the said act of March third, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, for all the purposes of defence, transfer, appeal, error, or limitation provided therein. But no such order shall, by force of this act, or the act to which this is an amendment, be a defence to any suit or action for any act done or omitted to be done after the passage of this act.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That when the said order is in writing, it shall be sufficient to produce in evidence the original, with proof of its authenticity, or a certified copy of the same; or if sent by telegraph, the production of the telegram purporting to emanate from such military officer shall be prima facie evidence of its authenticity; or if the original of such order or telegram is lost or cannot be produced, secondary evidence thereof shall be admissible, as in other cases.

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the right of removal from the State court into the circuit court of the United States, provided in the fifth section of the act to which this is amendatory, may be exercised after the appearance of the defendant and the filing of his plea or other defence in said court, or at any term of said court subsequent to the term when the appearance is entered, and before a jury is empannelled to try the same; but nothing herein contained shall be held to abridge the right of such removal after final judgment in the State court, nor shall it be necessary in the State court to offer or give surety for the filing of copies in the circuit court of the United States; but, on the filing of the petition, verified as provided in said fifth section, the further proceedings in the State court shall cease, and not be resumed until a certificate under the seal of the circuit court of the United States, stating that the petitioner has failed to file copies in the said circuit court, at the next term, is produced.

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That if the State court shall, notwithstanding the performance of all things required for the removal of the case to the circuit court aforesaid, proceed further in said cause or prosecution before said certificate is produced, then, in that case, all such further proceedings shall be void and of none effect; and all parties, judges, officers, and other persons, thenceforth proceeding thereunder, or by color thereof, shall be liable in damages therefor to the party aggrieved, to be recovered by action in a court of the State having proper jurisdiction, or in a circuit court of the United States for the district in which such further proceedings may have been had, or where the party, officer, or other person, so offending, shall be found; and upon a recovery of damages in either court, the party plaintiff shall be entitled to double costs.

Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the clerk of the State court to furnish copies of the papers and files in the case to the party so petitioning for the removal; and upon the refusal or neglect of the clerk to furnish such copies, the said party may docket the

THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS. Sess. I. Ch. 80,81. 1866. 47

case in the circuit court of the United States; and thereupon said circuit court shall have jurisdiction therein, and may, upon proof of such refusal or neglect of the clerk of the State court, and upon reasonable notice being given to the plaintiff, require him to file a declaration or petition therein; and upon his default may order a nonsuit, and dismiss the case at the costs of the plaintiff, which dismissal shall be a bar to any further declaration, &c. suit touching the matter in controversy.

Approved, May 11, 1866.

nolu_chan  posted on  2007-10-19   9:15:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 2.

        There are no replies to Comment # 2.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 2.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]