Clinton and Obama missing in Action

Both Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama decided to "not vote" on the recent travesty of justice called Bill S.2248. Not that such a thing is even important to either one of the candidates supporters. This bill which amends the FISA act of 1978, which President George Bush admitted to bypassing, contains section 202 entitled: SEC. 202. LIMITATIONS ON CIVIL ACTIONS FOR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDERS.

(a) Limitations-



(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a covered civil action shall not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court, and shall be promptly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the court that--



(A) the assistance alleged to have been provided by the electronic communication service provider was--



(i) in connection with an intelligence activity involving communications that was--

That is, if a phone company allowed the government to tap your line without a warrant as required by the FISA statute and by extension the 4th amendment, which is by definition a well a civil offense, possibly a felony, this statute will absolve that party of responsibility because....

(I) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007; and



(II) designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation for a terrorist attack, against the United States; and

That is, the phone company is in the clear of it's legal obligations because the president said so. Never mind the fact that the president's say so was in violation of the law. After all if El Presidente can break the law and get away with it, we might as well pass the dutchie to our fine donors. Puff puff pass n****az!

(ii) described in a written request or directive from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community (or the deputy of such person) to the electronic communication service provider indicating that the activity was--



(I) authorized by the President; and



(II) determined to be lawful; or



(B) the electronic communication service provider did not provide the alleged assistance.

What we said before.

(2) REVIEW- A certification made pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be subject to review by a court for abuse of discretion.

This is what we call the "non-disclosure claus." AKA: "We don't care if this is supposed to be a transparent democracy. We ain't tellin' shit."

(b) Review of Certifications- If the Attorney General files a declaration under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, that disclosure of a certification made pursuant to subsection (a) would harm the national security of the United States, the court shall--



(1) review such certification in camera and ex parte; and



(2) limit any public disclosure concerning such certification, including any public order following such an ex parte review, to a statement that the conditions of subsection (a) have been met, without disclosing the subparagraph of subsection (a)(1) that is the basis for the certification.

(c) Nondelegation- The authority and duties of the Attorney General under this section shall be performed by the Attorney General (or Acting Attorney General) or a designee in a position not lower than the Deputy Attorney General.

(d) Civil Actions in State Court- A covered civil action that is brought in a State court shall be deemed to arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States and shall be removable under section 1441 of title 28, United States Code.

This would be the fine print. Translation: So long as me an any of my non-elected boyz and girlz decide that we don't want to tell you squat, we sign a piece o' paper that says so and you can't do squat about it.

Technorati Tags: critique, privacy, US Constitution