Spying Before 9/11 - NOT - Covered By Immunity?!?

[kpete]

I’m wondering about something

In connection with intelligence activity involving communications that was (i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007 and (ii) designed to prevent or detect a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation of a terrorist attack, against the United States”....
http://archive.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/19/telecom/index.html

We know that Qwest had already refused to deal without a warrant as early as FEBRUARY - so does this mean that any spying done BEFORE September 11 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101202485.html?hpid=topnews is NOT covered by immunity? Is there any way we can use this to our advantage?

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/06/25/about-reids-potential-delay/

[midnight]

1. What an amazing window of opportuntiy to look at what they

have been collecting.

[Junkdrawer]

2. Well, existing lawsuits will be dismissed. But a NEW lawsuit...

that SPECIFICALLY targets spying before 9/11 may have a chance.

[wtmusic]

3. You have an excellent point there.

:thumbsup:

Make the bastids pay.

[petgoat]

4. There were allegations that Nancy Pelosi knew about this pre-9/11 spying and did nothing.

Can anybody provide information on that?

[robinlynne]

5. I wish they would all stand up and mention that it started before 9/11 to

end the association between spying and 9/11. The two have absolutely NOTHING to do with each other.
then, based on that association they go on to say that if the telecoms stand trial we will have another attack on the US (I'm paraphrasing our own Feinstein here, who siad if we do not pass THIS particular bill, as it is, we risk another attack...)

[noise]

7. If I didn't know any better I would say the Bush administration

is threatening the public. It comes across as a threat because they dropped their guard before 9/11 and 3,000 people were murdered. They could do it again and then have the media protect them again ("Wow, they did such a great job for years but the terrorists only have to get lucky once.")

More power is their answer to everything but nobody is accountable for a damn thing.

[uponit7771]

6. K&R, But the FISA bill allows the president to bypass FISA if "exigent" circumstances exist

[wryter2000]

9. I think they'd have a hard time proving an "exigent" circumstance in February 2001 n/t

n/t

[wryter2000]

8. Good spot!

And * couldn't ask for immunity pre 9/11/01 because that would be admitting he was spying before then.

I guess the question would be: Of the people qualified to bring suit (it's a small number because so few people can prove they were spied on), can any of them credibly allege that the spying started before 9/11/01?

[progressoid]

10. Doesn't matter. IIRC the SCOTUS ruled that the plaintiff would have to prove damage

I don't remember the exact case (I'm sure some bright DUer knows :)).

Of course, the Catch 22 is that it's pretty difficult to prove damage when all the records needed are secret and even a FOI won't get the gov't to release them. National security and all doncha know.