Comments on: Ignorance is no excuse for telecoms in NSA illegal spying case http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/11/05/ignorance-is-no-excuse-for-telecoms-in-nsa-illegal-spying-case/ Think - it ain't illegal yet... Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:20:54 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Martin http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/11/05/ignorance-is-no-excuse-for-telecoms-in-nsa-illegal-spying-case/comment-page-1/#comment-8070 Martin Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:32:53 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/11/05/ignorance-is-no-excuse-for-telecoms-in-nsa-illegal-spying-case/#comment-8070 JL, Oops! I meant to say "city." Gah. Slip of the brain. ;) JL,

Oops! I meant to say “city.” Gah. Slip of the brain. ;)

]]> By: Dr. Slammy http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/11/05/ignorance-is-no-excuse-for-telecoms-in-nsa-illegal-spying-case/comment-page-1/#comment-8065 Dr. Slammy Tue, 06 Nov 2007 14:41:56 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/11/05/ignorance-is-no-excuse-for-telecoms-in-nsa-illegal-spying-case/#comment-8065 Nacchio may have done something right, but if he did I assure you it was completely by accident. File under "E" for "Even a blind pig will find a truffle every once in awhile." Nacchio may have done something right, but if he did I assure you it was completely by accident. File under “E” for “Even a blind pig will find a truffle every once in awhile.”

]]> By: Martin http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/11/05/ignorance-is-no-excuse-for-telecoms-in-nsa-illegal-spying-case/comment-page-1/#comment-8063 Martin Tue, 06 Nov 2007 13:48:01 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/11/05/ignorance-is-no-excuse-for-telecoms-in-nsa-illegal-spying-case/#comment-8063 Bob, No one's forgotten that, believe me. Over the weekend there were a number of interesting articles that delved deeply into Qwest's history with the NSA and Nacchio's decision not to participate in the program--and the resultant consequences. What's interesting about this is that Qwest founder Phillip Anschutz was a devoted right-winger that supported many Republican causes, and Nacchio himself was quite the crook. (Sam can tell you more about that.) Strange instance of moral courage on his part, though I suspect he was more worried about the legal repercussions of being found out--which is what Verizon and AT&T are facing now. Bob,

No one’s forgotten that, believe me. Over the weekend there were a number of interesting articles that delved deeply into Qwest’s history with the NSA and Nacchio’s decision not to participate in the program–and the resultant consequences.

What’s interesting about this is that Qwest founder Phillip Anschutz was a devoted right-winger that supported many Republican causes, and Nacchio himself was quite the crook. (Sam can tell you more about that.) Strange instance of moral courage on his part, though I suspect he was more worried about the legal repercussions of being found out–which is what Verizon and AT&T are facing now.

]]> By: Gray http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/11/05/ignorance-is-no-excuse-for-telecoms-in-nsa-illegal-spying-case/comment-page-1/#comment-8062 Gray Tue, 06 Nov 2007 08:53:14 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/11/05/ignorance-is-no-excuse-for-telecoms-in-nsa-illegal-spying-case/#comment-8062 In my understanding (and I'm not a lawyer), Ashcroft ruined his own case for immunity. He states that "Longstanding principles of law hold that an American corporation is entitled to rely on assurances of legality from officials responsible for government activities". Very well, then why do the telecoms need a special law defending them, when there is this clear precedent that will keep them out of trouble? If they had sufficient reason to believe the administration, as Ashcroft tries to make us believe, they have nothing to fear in court. So, any special protection is unnecessary. I rest my case. In my understanding (and I’m not a lawyer), Ashcroft ruined his own case for immunity. He states that “Longstanding principles of law hold that an American corporation is entitled to rely on assurances of legality from officials responsible for government activities”. Very well, then why do the telecoms need a special law defending them, when there is this clear precedent that will keep them out of trouble? If they had sufficient reason to believe the administration, as Ashcroft tries to make us believe, they have nothing to fear in court. So, any special protection is unnecessary. I rest my case.

]]> By: JLRoberson http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/11/05/ignorance-is-no-excuse-for-telecoms-in-nsa-illegal-spying-case/comment-page-1/#comment-8061 JLRoberson Tue, 06 Nov 2007 07:20:43 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/11/05/ignorance-is-no-excuse-for-telecoms-in-nsa-illegal-spying-case/#comment-8061 Great post. But "state of Chicago?" I live here. Trust me, it's a city. Great post. But “state of Chicago?” I live here. Trust me, it’s a city.

]]> By: Uncle Bob http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/11/05/ignorance-is-no-excuse-for-telecoms-in-nsa-illegal-spying-case/comment-page-1/#comment-8060 Uncle Bob Tue, 06 Nov 2007 03:20:44 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/11/05/ignorance-is-no-excuse-for-telecoms-in-nsa-illegal-spying-case/#comment-8060 All these folks arguing in favor of granting telecom immunity keep forgetting to mention that here was a telecom firm that did recognize the government's request to be illegal. Likely as a consequence, but not proven, its CEO was promptly placed under investigation and later convicted of insider trading, a charge that could be made to stick in just about any major corporation. All these folks arguing in favor of granting telecom immunity keep forgetting to mention that here was a telecom firm that did recognize the government’s request to be illegal. Likely as a consequence, but not proven, its CEO was promptly placed under investigation and later convicted of insider trading, a charge that could be made to stick in just about any major corporation.

]]>