House Republicans Renew Push for Telecom Immunity

CNet is running an update to the controversy over giving telecommunications giants such as AT&T immunity from lawsuits involving the assistance they gave the NSA for illegal wiretaps. Republican leaders are circulating a petition which would force a vote on the bill passed by the Senate but not by the House. Democrats are holding out for a version of the FISA bill which opens the telecoms to prosecution. President Bush still intends to veto any such document. "At a wide-ranging House hearing on Wednesday, FBI Director Robert Mueller again urged passage of a bill that includes immunity for phone companies, arguing that 'uncertainty' among the carriers 'affects our ability to get info as fast and as quickly as we would want.' He admitted, however, that he was not aware of any wiretap requests being denied because of Congress' inaction."

National Security or Political Security?

On Wednesday, a number of Republican leaders, including Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) and Peter King (R-N.Y.), began circulating what's known as a "discharge" petition

Lamar Smith -- $679,583 from Communic/Electronics industry [opensecrets.org]
Peter Hoekstra -- $42,685 from Communic/Electronics industry [opensecrets.org]
Peter King -- $140,072 from Communic/Electronics industry [opensecrets.org]

"More than 66 days have passed since House Democrats allowed a key piece of terrorist surveillance legislation to expire--not because they had concerns with the bill, but because they were seemingly more concerned that not enough trial lawyers would be able to file enough expensive and frivolous lawsuits against U.S. telecom firms," Republican whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said in a statement.

Roy Blunt -- $846,327 from Communic/Electronics industry [opensecrets.org]

Re:

42k is chump change for an election warchest. 650+k on the other hand, is a nice chunk of cash...

Of course if you want to throw out Hoekstra youre going to have to do what he did to get elected: win the primary, which is where most money is spent in MI2.

Re:

Roy Blunt -- $846,327 from Communic/Electronics industry

Good to know the price of my "representative", thanks.

Little more than a stunt, really

The success and the payback the Democrats experienced in overturning this train-wreck of a bill experienced, they aren't in the mood to roll over any more. Even the telcos prefer the Democratic version which grants the companies the ability to present evidence in their own defence.

And that is what scares the Bush administration most: transparency. They know that they are in a world of trouble, and the GOP is now looking at a sea-change as strong as when Roosevelt succeeded Hoover. It will be a long time before Republicans can overcome the legacy of Lee Atwater/ Karl Rove politics...

Re:

No one ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the American public.

I forget who made that quote, but it's still valid.

Re:

That's assuming that the winner of the Obama-Clinton race can't swallow his or her pride and offer their opponent shotgun.

An Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama ticket should motivate the Democratic voters for both front runners. Additionally, as long as the c

Re:Little more than a stunt, really

That's assuming that the winner of the Obama-Clinton race can't swallow his or her pride and offer their opponent shotgun.

Saying this means you know little of the real schism between Obama and Clinton campaigns. This is a battle for the soul of the Democratic party, and it looks like the old guard (Clinton's folks) are fighting tooth and nail for the top seat, but losing. Look in the history books about previous such change... it's painful and doesn't happen overnight.

Link

The link for this statement:

[FBI Director Robert Mueller] admitted, however, that he was not aware of any wiretap requests being denied because of Congress' inaction."

is here: www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9886461-7.html [news.com]

This is the relevant passage:

...FBI Director Robert Mueller continued that push on Wednesday, but he wouldn't go so far as to say those "private partners" would stop installing requested wiretaps unless certain legal protection is granted.

To some extent, Mueller is stating the obvious: Federal law requires telephone and Internet companies to comply with lawful wiretap court orders or lawful certifications from the attorney general, with stiff penalties for noncompliance. But Mueller said in various ways that he was concerned that lack of retroactive liability protection would harm the government's "relationships" with telephone companies -- which seems to leave in doubt whether all of the administration's requests were legal.

The seemingly reluctant admission came during pointed questioning by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Specter, the committee's ranking member, has proposed an amendment--which has so far been unsuccessful--to a controversial spy law update that would allow lawsuits alleging illegal spying by telephone companies to continue, except with government lawyers substituted in the companies' place.

FBI Director Robert Mueller said he disagreed with that approach, arguing it would provide a "disincentive" for communications companies to team up with federal terrorism investigations.

Then the following exchange ensued:

Specter: A disincentive, OK, but do you think they would stop?
Mueller: I think it is a disincentive...
Specter: But do you think they would stop?
Mueller: I think it would hamper our relationships, yes.... I do think it would hinder our relationships.
Specter: Disincentive, hamper, hinder, but I don't hear you say it would stop....
Mueller: I'm not going to say it's going to stop, but I do believe delay is detrimental to the safety of the country. Delay and lack of clarity, lack of simplicity guiding our relationships inhibits our ability to get the information we need on a daily basis.
...

The Telcos are really caught in the middle...

I do have quite a bit of sympathy for the telcos here. Yes, they were in many cases paid to do the wiretapping, but I do not blame them in the least for assuming that the requests from the govt. agency were legal. It is not the telco's job to evaluate the constitutionality of requests from a government agency.

OTOH, NOT granting them immunity is the only way we are ever going to get to the bottom of the wiretapping scandal, since suits against the govt. have been dismissed for lack of standing. (Lack of standing has been ruled, because the plaintiff's have not been allowed to collect or present evidence that the wiretapping took place at all. A stupid Catch-22.)

SirWired

Re:

I often wonder how they imagine themselves squaring accepting money from lobbyists, etc with God. "it was a lot of money" seems like a terrible excuse.

Not to mention that Jesus himself supposedly said that you can only serve one lord - money, or God. But

Re:

I don't think that anybody is going to argue against wiretapping criminals, and those that are likely to be criminals.

The issue here is no oversight, no idea who's being tapped and a bunch of telcos that were raking in the cash for illegal favors trying to

Re:

Maybe if all the people that complained about the indications that the Bush administration has been greedy and unethical actually went out and actively tried to get them indicted. Perhaps then a serious investigation could take place to uncover exactly wha

Re:Not until they cut us our $150,000.00 checks..

Why are these Republicans so SOFT ON CRIME???

Because illicit gains from those crimes make them hard.

Re:

I think *we all* could use that check for $150,000.00.

Just curious. Where do you think all that money would come from? Even if it's not the 150k/person that you want, where do you think the money from any fines would come from?

I'll even give you a hint... where do TelCo's get their money?

Re:

Tell you what -- the officers of the company dictated that illegal policy, and considering the phone company's history and how long those guys have been around, they knew damned well what they were doing.

Take ALL their assets. Bankrupt them, distribute th

Re:

I'll even give you a hint... where do TelCo's get their money?

In this case? Shareholders, ultimately. Telecoms' prices are already set at the profit-maximizing point. If they could make more money by raising prices, they would already have done so.

The benefit of liability would be that next time a shareholder chose which telecom company to invest in, he'd pick one that made the most credible promises not to spy on its customers, and crime would be deterred.

You can't sue the owners of an incorporated company as they are shielded. That's why companies incorporate. You have to sue the company itself as it is its own entity.

Now, if you can find a telco that allowed wire taps and is a sole proprietorship, then

Re:

You can't sue the owners of an incorporated company as they are shielded.

Yes, I know that. I'm a few steps ahead of you. You sue the corporation; the settlement (and it always settles) comes out of the corporation's treasury, which means the corporation owns fewer assets, which means the stock is less valuable, which means th

Re:

I'd like to tell you you're wrong, but it was the hatred and vitriol I saw on the part of the anti-Bush crowd that kept me from listening to them for a long time.

Nowadays, I agree with them that he is a criminal, that his behavior is unethical, that he is

Re:

Nowadays, I agree with them that he is a criminal, that his behavior is unethical, that he is running the country into the ground and that his war is being waged on behalf of corporate interests. But I try not to badmouth and insult him, because I don't th

Re:

Thank you for an absolutely classic example of the ad hominem fallacy. Clearly there is something wrong with you, therefore there must be something wrong with your argument. Please, attach the argument or position, or remain quiet--attacking the person a

Re:

too blinded ... to form an honest, open-minded opinion

Prejudice is the mother of all traps, sure. Here's the one I fell into:

In an essay by Ron Suskind [nytimes.com], one of the President's advisors is quoted referring to

the way he walks and the way he points, th

Re:Hard to Say "No."

No, they don't deserve anything. They KNEW that what they were doing was against the law- that's why they're begging for immunity. If WE did something along the same lines, we'd be doing hard prison time.

Sorry, companies need to be held accountable for their actions- period.

It's not "okay" because the President asked them pretty please and gave 'em an offer they couldn't refuse. If a mobster did the same thing and you robbed a bank, stole a car, or killed someone- you'd do the time all the same or some lessened sentence and you'd be found guilty of the crime.

No immunity. Present your evidence- roll the dice and see what comes of it.

Re:Hard to Say "No."

If a mobster did the same thing and you robbed a bank, stole a car, or killed someone- you'd do the time all the same or some lessened sentence and you'd be found guilty of the crime.

And more: the mobster would do time as well. So, why isn't the president?

Re:Hard to Say "No."

Absolutely not, if they were coerced that needs to be shown in a court of law. I have no problem with not punishing them for breaking law in that case, but the evidence that they were coerced needs to be entered shown to the courts first.

Immunity just allows the White House to hide the evidence of what they were doing when they knowingly broke the law by asking for information they could not legally ask for.

Re:Someone tell me something:

Well, if they didn't break any laws, then there's no need to pass legislation that grants them immunity for breaking the law.

It's obvious the Republicans think that they and the telecommunications companies did break the law, and in such a serious way that they are desperately fearful of the aftermath of their actions.