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."

Sure they can have immunity...

[The Master Control P]

After they enumerate every last thing Bushco did. Sort of like how the prosecutor normally gets something of value for case A in exchange for not pursuing case B, generally as a stepping stone to indictment for a worse offense in case A?

I don't know what sickens me more, the extent to which Bushco has defiled the rule of law in this country or that they'll most likely succeed in avoiding prosecution by running out the clock.

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

[mikelieman]

Are our legislators going to let these felons walk away from the Statutory Penalties for their CHOICE to commit Unlawful Surveillance?

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

And this brings up another question...

Why are these Republicans so SOFT ON CRIME???

Re:Hard to Say "No."

[Svartalf]

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:Sure they can have immunity...

[Narpak]

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 what has been done by whom; and prosecute any wrong doing.

However, just venting a bit now and again on forums or to friends or co-workers; is just as bad as ignoring the problem or pretending it doesn't exists. As long as people continue to stick their head in the sand and pretend nothing is their responsibility; nothing is exactly what will happen.

Re:Hard to Say "No."

[Thing 1]

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

[ArcherB]

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:Sure they can have immunity...

[Murrquan]

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 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 think it's right. And I don't want to turn anyone else away.

It's hard enough getting people to listen as it is.

Re:Hard to Say "No."

[tbannist]

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:

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the law which allows them to tap the phones without a warrant also requires that they then obtain said warrant with.... I believe it was 72 hours time. So even though there is an allowance in the law for them to tap a call in a case of a dire need, they still need to go to FISA to make that tapping legitimate.

Bush couldn't even be bothered to do that much though. So that's why we are where we are.

Re:Someone tell me something:

[tbannist]

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.

Re:The Telcos are really caught in the middle...

[TubeSteak]

It is not the telco's job to evaluate the constitutionality of requests from a government agency.

What?
A. We're talking basic legality, not Constitutionality
B. Anyone receiving a "request" has the obligation to say no if it conflicts with existing laws or other obligations.

Remember when Google fought off that subpoena by the Justice Dept because the Feds wanted to get their hands on search results to bolster some child protection law? Google evaluated the legality of that "request" from the government, told them to take a flying leap, and was backed up by a Judge.

There are so many other counter-examples I could give, but it isn't that hard a concept. I don't know what fantasy world you're in where "requests" and subpoenas are magically assumed to be legal, valid, and not overly broad.

Re:Little more than a stunt, really

[rsborg]

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.

Re:Sure they can have immunity...

[immcintosh]

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 accomplishes nothing.

That said, Bush has done much to deserve the vitriol that is so squarely aimed at him, at least in the eyes of many, and on top of that I think you own prejudices have caused you to apparently read WAY too much into something as simple as the word "Bushco." I mean, overreact much?

Re:Republicans are a wierd set

[hedwards]

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 avoid being held accountable by the people. Basically as it stands now it is almost completely unknown as to who was being tapped, for what reasons and why. The fact that they weren't even bothering to use FISA which is set up with notoriously lax standards and can issue warrants after the tapping has already been completed is more than a little fishy. Anybody that argues that the telcos didn't know what they were doing was wrong, really needs to think about that, and consider the legally granted wire taps that they disconnected because they weren't paid in a timely fashion for the service.

But then again, what do I know, I still think that flag lapel pins are tacky and disrespect our service personnel when used to invoke patriotism as part of a campaign ruse.

Re:Sure they can have immunity...

[immcintosh]

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 think it's right. And I don't want to turn anyone else away.

He's an unethical criminal who is destroying our country on the behalf of corporate interests... but it's not okay to badmouth him? What kind of twisted world do you live in? If you don't "badmouth" that kind of bullshit, it slides. And when it slides, and you suffer for it, you have only yourself to blame. By all means, badmouth it in a more politic manner than some have, but badmouth it you absolutely should.

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

[Pendersempai]

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 the share price drops, which means people who own the shares just cumulatively lost an amount of money exactly equal to the price of the settlement. In other words, as I said, the shareholders bear the loss.

The only time shareholders' limited liability makes a difference would be if the company were sued (and lost) for more than its entire market capitalization -- in other words, for a number larger than the value of all the outstanding stock combined. Then it goes into bankruptcy and it's true that shareholders are not personally liable for the negative value of the corporation. But I would be shocked if that happened here. Telecoms are enormous creatures.

Re:Sure they can have immunity...

[mOdQuArK!]

So you allowed your emotional reaction to people whose behavior you disliked to override your rational judgement about an important subject. It sounds like you share equal blame for being shortsighted with the people whose behavior was irritating you.

Re:The Telcos are really caught in the middle...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Yes it is the telecom's job, and they do this. They traditionally will not give up any information without a warrant. They DID know it was illegal to do so. In fact, I don't like Qwest in general, but Qwest DID get advice from Qwest's legal council when they saw how irregular these "requests" were and told the feds to sit'n'spin, come back when they have a warrant. The feds actually have cancelled a contract or two with Qwest, but they recognized that liability under the law would far outweigh these contracts, and that it was better to follow the law. The Congress absolutely SHOULD NOT grant immunity -- Qwest demonstrates clearly that the other telecoms DID know they were breaking the law; at the very least, the other telecoms should have a fine equal to value of government contracts so Qwest isn't disadvantaged for following the law. (Realistically, they should be fined AT LEAST $1 billion apiece to let them know violating the right to privacy is not cool.)