Lawmakers Delay Telco Immunity Vote

eweekhickins writes "The US Senate Judiciary Committee delayed a scheduled vote on whether telecommunications carriers should be granted immunity for cooperating with the White House's domestic spying program of telephone wiretapping and e-mail surveillance. The panel hopes to vote on the provision as soon as next week. Senator Pat Leahy said that immunity would make it impossible for Americans to seek redress for 'illegal' violations of their privacy." The article points out the confused state of the immunity measure: the House is considering a version of FISA renewal that has no immunity; in the Senate, two committees are working on different versions, one with immunity, one without.

Comments

Other side

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to take side of telcoms. They worked with government agencies. Government agencies said "Help us spying or you will be against law". And now government says "You were helping us spying, you were against law". So is it fault of telcoms or government?

Re:Other side

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the fault of people continuing to make excuses for them.

Re:Other side

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes its AT&T's fault just as much as the government's fault. AT&T has plenty of lawyers for these kinds of situations. One of the people involved could have gone to their legal department and found out if it was illegal to do this. The US Government can lock individuals away and silence them but its not quite as easy to silence one of the world's largest telecoms companies.

It should have been obvious that a spying program on this scale wouldn't stay secret too long.

Re:Other side

[Anonymous Coward]

You forget that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Re:Other side

[packeteer]

Remember that if they helped wiretap legally they are already immune. If there was a court order and the government required a wiretap the telco's cannot be sued. The problem here is that the government was breaking the law (allegedly lol) and the telco's helped work out the details of how to break the law.

Re:Other side

[Anonymous Coward]

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
--President George W. Bush

Re:Other side

[Dunbal]

People were hanged at Nuremburg despite saying "I was only following orders".

There comes a time where you have to do what's RIGHT, even if you have to go to jail for it.

Re:Other side

[Jawnn]

Bullshit. The law is the law, and that law makes it pretty damn clear that spying on U.S. citizens, without first demonstrating to a judicial authority probable cause for the issue a warrant authorizing such spying, is wrong. Period. This being the case, a business, and/or those responsible for operating that business, is/are responsible for obeying this well-established law, REGARDLESS of who asked them to break it. Their answer SHOULD have been, "No warrant - no wiretap. Sorry."

Re:Other side

[rpillala]

The telecoms are in an awkward position (of their own making) for sure. The same people who said "help us or the terrorists win" aren't the ones who would see them prosecuted. The problem with your argument is that the government we have now is factionalized. While both factions operate under the same title of "US Government" they don't exercise their power in the same way. The executive branch seems to be taking the position of Nixon who famously said "If the President does it, it isn't illegal." They won't come out and say they're above the law, they'll change the law so that what they did can't be punished. If Congress weren't steadily selling out the people, the strategy wouldn't work. People complain about Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer, but really anyone from any party who supports this crap should be voted out. Republicans should be expected to do the right thing too.

And I think the answer to your question is "both."

Re:Other side

[SpaceLifeForm]

And since corporations don't go to jail,
there was really no excuse to not do what's right.

But, the money blinds them.

Re:Other side

[zippthorne]

Wait.. are you saying that the Nuremberg convicts were right to follow the orders they did?

Re:Other side

[sumdumass]

Enabling the government to listen to people talking to other people outside the country after a terrorist attack killed almost 3000 people inside the country and having some notion to suspect that at least one of the caller might be a terrorist or someone giving aid to them when the government cal listen to the foreign part of the conversation all they want without reproach as long as they aren't US citizens is entirely different from killing people just because they practice a religion.

The just following orders in this situation didn't lead to anyone dieing and is order of magnitude different. Just following orders and following orders under the pain of imprisonment for a non life threatening action could be considered acceptable. And before you start blowing things out of portion, no one is suggesting that wire taps were anything other then listening to the other end of suspected terrorist accept the politically motivated people who see this as a downfall for the administration. No one with the knowledge of what was going on which includes several democrats (even senators) has made any statements to suggest anything else was happening.

Re:Other side

[sumdumass]

There is a line of defense on the president's part that goes to the point that while he is commander in chief, collecting battlefield inteligence is entirely within the role of commander in chief and congress cannot pass any laws restricting the roles that the constitution places on the president unless the constitution specifically allows them to. In the case of commander in chief, collecting battlefield inteligence, congress has no such ability to limit this. So any existing law that would limit this just wouldn't be applicable under those circumstances. It would be like a law against running a red light unless you have sirens and flashing lights of a certain color going off. Then the law on running red lights doesn't apply.

Congress is very worried about this. If it goes to debate or the supreme court and it is found that this is true, congress losses a lot of percieved power that if anything, they can use to rally public opinion. The closer this case goes to trial, the more likely the chances of this being resolved in order to protect certain evidence and to exclude other evidence. Stuff like records of exactly who was tapped and when, who ordered it and what justification they had will all have to be decided. Of course when the telco says we were ordered to break law and told the law doesn't apply because of X, they then have to determine if they got bad advice from the government of it no wrong doing actually transpired.

Congress will give them immunity after dragging it out for a while. They will probably wait until it is closer to an election so the people who have years left until their election can vote yes and the people who are up for reelection can vote no and have it all forgotten by the time the next congressional election comes around. Congress then retains the appearance of total power over the executive branch and they remain happy about it.

If it the courts determine that the president was correct and justified in doing what they were doing, it will be a lot harder to limit the actions of anyone else who is in that office. Congress will have to go back to making and passing laws instead of acting like the jealous little brother who constantly has to tell on the older brother and they will have to accept that the president isn't above the law but only has certain laws effect him depending on the roles the constitution of the United State Of America places on the office of president and the person elected to fill that office.

I for one agree with this line of defense. Congress is too chicken to see if the courts do to. That is why there will be immunity.

Re:Other side

[Nullav]

It looks more like he was saying that the telcos deserve to be hung (figuratively) for 'just following orders'. Though I can only see this really hurting the employees and customers, rather than the people who actually made the decision to allow this mass wiretapping.

Re:Other side

[iamwahoo2]

Qwest had no problem making the right choice.

Re:Other side

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol.. Once again the moderators simply amuse me with their superior intellect. Despite that no one else in this thread has mentioned that the Nuremberg trials were nothing like this and no body was injured or killed as the results of the actions taken by the telcos the time stamp seems to indicate that MY post was before the others in responce to this.

Actually I know the point of the moderation was to suppress the point I was making be decreasing the posts score to go below the default settings. So let me reiterate it here. You cannot compare the reactions to genocide with the actions of letting the government tap phones when they were ordered to do it by the government. No where in the Nuremberg trials did the people who ran the trains taking the jews to the death camps get placed on trial. No where did the soldiers who rounded the jews up get placed on trial or prosecuted. No where did the factory workers who made parts for the gas chambers or the ovens that cremated the jews get busted, prosecuted or anything else. Why? because they were following orders not issuing them. They enabled the act, not participated in it. And that is a major difference between Nuremberg and the teclos. The tecos are more like the people who drove the trains or made the gas used to kill the jews. None of them were tried because they were just following orders and did not participate in the acts.

Re:Other side

[Tancred]

congress cannot pass any laws restricting the roles that the constitution places on the president unless the constitution specifically allows them to.

It's even simpler than that. Congress does not need to check if the constitution allows them to pass a law restricting warrantless wiretapping. The constitution itself already makes that illegal, in the 4th Amendment. I'll agree with you about Congress being chicken though. The President has publicly admitted to breaking the law, but the Congress will not act.

Re:Other side

[sumdumass]

It isn't really that cut and dry. The fourth amendment says without reasonable (probable) cause. Would someone conspiring with the enemy in order to inflict casualties to your citizens be reasonable or probable cause?

Remember, these taps were with international calls where on one end was either an American citizen inside or outside the country and on the other end a suspected terrorist outside the country. Congress had said that you only need the warrant when one of the parties is an American citizen or inside the US.

Re:Other side

[Tancred]

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but the probable cause phrase is clearly one of the requirements for issuing a warrant. If I was a judge and was shown probable cause of someone conspiring to inflict casualties, I would certainly issue a warrant.

Did you mistype that last paragraph? The taps were on American citizens, and you need a warrant when one of the parties is an American citizen?

Legality aside, have you heard a rational argument against following the FISA statute? Isn't wiretapping important enough to have some oversight? Remember that the warrants can be issued after the fact. To not even go to the FISA court afterward makes the tappers unaccountable. And in my book, "too much paperwork" doesn't cut it as an excuse.

Re:Other side

[rpillala]

The police emergency analogy is interesting in that I've never heard it before. Can you link or point me to more extended presentations of this?

My main complaint with this approach is that I don't view the world as a battlefield because that renders the term meaningless. It also renders terms like "civilian" meaningless. Or not maybe I have it wrong that's why I'd like to read more.

Re:Other side

[Anonymous Coward]

as a former Telco worker, and not one of the co-conspirators, our answer when local cops wanted to evesdrop on neghibors, was the more polite form of that;

"Sir, as soon as the warrent is on my desk, it will be the first thing I take care of. You have my word."

Re:Other side

[sumdumass]

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but the probable cause phrase is clearly one of the requirements for issuing a warrant. If I was a judge and was shown probable cause of someone conspiring to inflict casualties, I would certainly issue a warrant.

Law enforcement execute searches without getting an actual warrant every day. This is done because they have probable cause and can do so under the constitution when it (the cop thinks it) becomes necessary. To say no law enforcement agency cannot execute a search without a judge signing off first would likely over throw half of the convictions in some areas and a little less in others. Now if it is the case where they have to get warrants first, there are a lot of people who have been locked up because of unconstitutional methods. You can see this just by watching the television show cops where they pull someone over for tinted windows and find a kilo of coke in the trunk without ever getting a warrant. Or maybe even when they drive down the road, see someone they don't like, pull up to them to harass them and do a search to find bags of crack on them. And yes, a wire tap is considered a search, otherwise it the constitution wouldn't address it at all.

Did you mistype that last paragraph? The taps were on American citizens, and you need a warrant when one of the parties is an American citizen?

The taps were one American citizens on an international phone call where one party is/was a terrorist or suspected terrorist. This is in no way the government listening to you call your aunt Jane in the same state to figure out how to make cookies or pie. Current law of the time said they could listen to the terrorist/suspected terrorist side of the call with impunity if it was outside the US. It was only when they wanted to hear the citizen side that there was a problem.

FISA currently still only restricts the wire tapping when an American citizen is part of the conversation. It allows the US to tap Russian calls to the UK or within Russia or whatever as long as it isn't inside the US and an american citizen isn't likely to be on the line all it wants.

The government doesn't have the resources or the manpower to listen to every call made. They don't even have it to listen to the suspicious calls. These were limited to people talking to people with ties to terrorism. But that doesn't mean they didn't monitor other calls. Echelon, which the courts have already ruled is legal, scans every call made and listens for key words. When they are found, the call is recording, it is isn't already a recording because of a backlog on processing power, and then it is passed on to someone for review. This person makes a determination and decides if it should be flagged for follow up or if it should be discarded. When people start talking in code, they just add coded keywords to match what is being used. This has been going on since 1996 or so. It increases in it's effectiveness as technology gets better.

Now, for the warrant. FISA says you need a warrant when one of the parties of the conversation is either on American soil or is an American citizen. But you only need that warrant to hear their side of the call. But there is this defense the president has. congress in effect passed a declaration of war without actually saying we are at war. The courts have already considered it a declaration of war. A constitutional obligation of the president is to be commander in chief and a duty of commander in chief is to collect battlefield inteligence. The question that needs to be answered is, can congress limit the powers of the president when taking on a role that the constitution demands him to take without the consitution giving congress the power to do so. Congress certainly couldn't pass a law saying that the president must sign everything they give him into law. They couldn't pass a law saying the president can't negotiate treaties. They cannot pass a law saying that the president has to hire

Re:Other side

[shentino]

What's to stop the FBI from issuing one of those so-called "national security letters"?

Here, it's illegal to even move to stop, because the fact that you were issued a NSL is itself classified, so you can't even go whining to a judge about the big bad feds without getting locked up.

Or how about these responses to the "no warrant, no wiretap":

"No wiretap, you go to jail for obstruction."
"No wiretap, you're a terrorist and I detain you as long as I damn well please."

We can all praise the constitution all we like, but as long as we've got federal agents who CAN ARREST YOU AND MAKE YOU VANISH IN THE BLINK OF AN EYE, it will take lots more than a silly piece of paper to stop them...especially if even the most anti-government federal judge doesn't even find out about it until you've already incriminated yourself. Which is likely if you are detained as a terrorist and denied access to the legal system.

Point of fact, many federal agencies have internal "arbitration courts" that the main justice system has held does serve as a lower level court. So anything the "administrative hearing" says has just as much force of law as if it was a federal court. The FTC for example does this all the time, and it wins 97 percent of the cases it brings in its "own court". So unless you bite the bullet and move for a change of venue on account of bias (which will piss off the ALJ so bad you'll probably get charged with contempt), any bias cannot be appealed because it was not brought up in the hearing itself.

The constitution is great, but it means nothing in practice. If the govermnent really wants to be bad, nothing can stop it.

They are all terrorists!

[www.sorehands.com]

Barack Obama, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden are all communists^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hterrorists! They are supporting
communists^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hterrorists by not allowing the US government to search all of our records when they please so that they can find the communists^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hterrorists. That is so un-American. We must find and lock up all the communists^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hterrorists.

George Orwell was not wrong, just early.

Re:They are all terrorists!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bet you look a lot like Comic Book Guy.

Re:They are all terrorists!

[ScrewMaster]

George Orwell was not wrong, just early.

Not really. This has been going on for a long time. We're only now starting to feel the effects.

Re:They are all terrorists!

[homer_ca]

The feds have always spied secretly on phone calls, but the incident where Alberto Gonzales and Andrew Card went to John Ashcroft's hospital bed to get him to sign off on the spying program points to something much worse. You can either believe a) John Ashcroft is a principled civil libertarian and doesn't believe in spying on Americans or b) the spying program under Bush was so egregiously illegal that it far exceeded any secret spying that we may have conducted previously.

Judiciary Committees

[Presto Vivace]

For reference: Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, House Judiciary Committee

History

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I truly witnessing the inflection point of the decline of the USA?

I'm sad, but also feel privileged to be a witness.

Re:History

[Volante3192]

I'd prefer the position of an outside observer, personally.

Re:History

[ScrewMaster]

Am I truly witnessing the inflection point of the decline of the USA?

Nope. That happened in 1945, it's pretty much been downhill ever since.

Mum?!?

[iknownuttin]

FTFA: Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden all oppose granting immunity to the carriers.

Good for them!

Other Democratic candidates, including Hillary Clinton, have not stated a position on immunity for telecom carriers. Republican presidential hopefuls have also been mum on the issue.

You chicken shit sons (and daughter) - of - bitches!

Re:Mum?!?

[Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS-]

Ron Paul hasn't issued a statement?

Re:Mum?!?

[larry bagina]

He's not a senator.

Re:Mum?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

He'd probably state that criminal prosecution constitutes government interference, would support immunity so the "free market" could sort everything out. At least that's what I'd expect from my experience with the "Libertarian" party.

Re:Mum?!?

[mstahl]

You chicken shit sons (and daughter) - of - bitches!

I'm glad someone else had the balls to say that. This isn't the usual sort of grey area political issue that you can see one way or another pretty easily: it's black and white. On one side of that border is a runaway executive branch that has completely forgotten all their responsibilities to the citizens of the United States, the Constitution, and the whole world. On the other side is a population of people who are scared shitless and doesn't even know why anymore.

When the telcos acquiesced to the government's illegal demands, they should have known that it was illegal, and even the government has to play by the rules until they make new ones. They deserve no immunity and neither do the people who ordered this.

Re:Mum?!?

[DJCacophony]

No, but he's a state representative

Re:Mum?!?

[Joe Jay Bee]

Not a supporter of Paul, but that's a little off base. He'd probably consider granting the telcos immunity to be unwanted government interference.

Re:Mum?!?

[iamwahoo2]

I always just assume that silence means that they will eventually take a position that is opposite of what is popular with the public. They just want to do it quietly.

Rule of Law.

[headkase]

If the telecoms are granted immunity by the government then the USA will no longer be under the rule of law. If it comes to pass, some people or organizations will be above the law and in my opinion that is not what the US should be about. What's next Bush, dictator for life?!?

Re:Rule of Law.

[BSAtHome]

He will declare a national emergency and stay on the presidential post for some more years. He has got good examples in the rest of the world...

Re:Rule of Law.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lying son of a bitch. Bastard. Which ever title you prefer. How the fuck do you know a damn thing about any of it? Going to make an internet claim that you work/worked for some secret agency now? You don't know a damn thing. SO shut the fuck up, bitch.

Re:Rule of Law.

[Opportunist]

Hey, some of them are in their seat becaues of US money, the least they can do in return is open the specs and the howtos.

Re:Rule of Law.

[Dunbal]

You don't know a damn thing. SO shut the fuck up, bitch.

Now now, don't get all worked up. It's the nature of sheep to bray. Would you blame the rain for being wet, or the snow for being cold? There will always be mindless followers no matter what the issue. Just try not to be one of them.

Re:Rule of Law.

[Sique]

If it was legal, then we won't need a law to immunize the telcos against it, right? So what's the fuss about?

Re:Rule of Law.

[Alt_Cognito]

Aye carumba, look, there is a 4th amendment, the judicial branch can check the legislative branch if they find the law unconstitutional. The judges put in place by Bush over the last 8 years will be replaced (as is the custom) come new leadership.

Re:Rule of Law.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm gonna second the guy who called you a lying son of a bitch. Even if it is secret and classified there should exist references to it, even if just among conspiracy buffs.

In other words, cite your source or shut your hole.

Re:Rule of Law.

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean Like Chavez?....wait...the left loves Chavez. Now that I mention it, the left has been very quiet about him recently. Perhaps they misjudged him? Or maybe they were just too anxious to join with anyone who hates Bush. Or maybe it's just a tacit approval of his path to dictatorship.

Re:Rule of Law.

[Johnny Mnemonic]

So what's the fuss about?

Seriously? It's about retroactive immunity. Since the telcos did it when it was illegal, and have since been caught at it, the question is should they be immunized for the past crimes they committed. In fact, they are being sued by the EFF over these (past) actions, and the court has basically suspended the case until it's determined if the Congress will give the telcos retroactive immunity--which would make the suit moot.

Obvious reason

[Daimanta]

The bribes haven't arrived yet.

Re:Obvious reason

[SeaFox]

Damn you! I was going to say they're waiting for the checks to clear the bank. :-)

Re:Obvious reason

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean donations? http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/dem-pushing-spy.html

Re:Obvious reason

[mOdQuArK!]

No, bribes is the right word.

Don't Get It

[Wellington Grey]

Why would anyone vote for immunity for the telcos when we don't even know what they did wrong? Who in their right mind would excuse someone without knowing the crime?

-Grey

Re:Don't Get It

[Absimiliard]

Who in their right mind would excuse someone without knowing the crime? I'm guessing Cardinal Richelieu for a starting point.......

And obviously GWB as well . . . . .

Conclusions drawn from these two examples are the property of the concluder, even I agree with them.

-abs

No Suprise

[Wellington Grey]

From the article: Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden all oppose granting immunity to the carriers. Other Democratic candidates, including Hillary Clinton, have not stated a position on immunity for telecom carriers.

No surprise there, seeing as Clinton won't give us an opinion on anything

-Grey

ahh, saturdays on slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, this article is two days old.

Second off, this is one of the worst articles that I've seen on this issue. It's not a FISA renewal bill, its called the RESTORE Act in the house. And the whole package is meant to make permanenet the PROTECT America that was passed in August which will expire in February. And throwing Qwest in with Verizon and ATT as the telcos being sued for alleged complicity is just laughable. HAs eWeek heard of a guy named Nacchio. Furthermore, Hillary has made a statement on the issue. I could go on but skip eWeek for this subject (I can't believe I actually have a subscription to these jokers!) and go to cnet or wired for the latest information.

Doesn't matter

[foreverdisillusioned]

Even if they aren't granted immunity, I can guarantee you that no one is going to be arrested. No one in a corporation is ever arrested, no matter how many white collar crimes they commit, unless those crimes directly affect the pocketbook of other white collar citizens (e.g. Enron). I realized this the day it came to light that Sony was installing rootkits on people's machines without their permission, and yet no one was even talking about arrests... and yet, if a fourteen year old was installing rootkits on thousands or millions of machines without their owners' permission, he would be arrested in a heartbeat and we'd be subjected to a month of scary and retarded Dateline specials on those evil hackers.

Similarly, if a fourteen year old phreaker records people's calls without their consent, he is arrested immediately. If a corporation does it, it at best merits a class-action lawsuit (which is the most we're going to see here... IF immunity isn't granted.) The fact that the corporations in this case were doing the bidding of the state certainly doesn't hurt them, but it's foolish to suppose to begin with that corporations are ever held to the same standard of justice as non-affiliated individuals.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

...No one in a corporation is ever arrested... Give me a break! Corporate executives are arrested, tried, convicted and sent to prison are a regular basis. Its government officials who skate. The UN oil for food scam by itself raked in orders of magnitude more cash for high UN and government officials around the world than Enron, Worldcomm and Global Crossing combined. Of course the head of the DNC made himself rich via Global Crossing so I'm not sure how to count that one, but, in any event no body in government went to jail or was even reprimanded :)

Re:Doesn't matter

[foreverdisillusioned]

Corporate executives are arrested, tried, convicted and sent to prison are a regular basis.

Yes. Because they commit crimes against other executives, or the government, or their shareholders. As long as they DON'T cost these people money, they can get away with pretty much any non-violent, non-obviously-fraudulent crime against the public at large. They're occasionally caught and sued, or caught and fined, but almost never actually imprisoned.

Re:Doesn't matter

[BadHaggis]

Even if they aren't granted immunity, I can guarantee you that no one is going to be arrested. No one in a corporation is ever arrested, no matter how many white collar crimes they commit, unless those crimes directly affect the pocketbook of other white collar citizens (e.g. Enron).

The immunity is not about sending people to jail it is about nulling out the civil lawsuits currently going on. If the Telcoms get immunity then the people that they have helped spy on have no recourse for civil lawsuits or compensation for having their 4th amendment rights trampled on.

Re:Doesn't matter

[foreverdisillusioned]

That's precisely my point. Again, putting aside the fact that they were apparently (illegally) acting on behalf of the government, why ISN'T jail time being considered? If I recorded your phone conversation, I would be imprisoned. AT&T does it, and not only is prison out of the question but they're debating whether or not they're even going to let you sue them.

Wrong

[MillionthMonkey]

Why do people fall for this garbage? If telecoms are granted carte blanche immunity now it prevents a more reasonable immunity deal later which would have a chance of exposing what appears to be significant wrongdoing on the part of the government. The motivation behind telecom immunity isn't really to let telecoms off the hook as much as it is to prevent stuff from coming out in court about what the government did. There are many things we'll never find out about if Dianne Feinstein helps usher this crap through. (I phoned her office at 202-224-3841 to complain. That's 202-224-3841. If enough Californians call 202-224-3841 maybe she'll change her mind since her constituents are overwhelmingly against this. But probably not- Feinstein is really horrible and is probably not running for reelection when her term expires years from now.)

Telecoms don't go to prison like you or I would. At most they incur legal expenses- probably less than a day's operating expenses- it's the cost of doing business. And they could have easily told the government to screw themselves. They were cooperating with these patently illegal requests even before 9/11.

Telecom immunity is obstruction of justice enshrined into law.

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Telecoms don't go to prison like you or I would. At most they incur legal expenses- probably less than a day's operating expenses- it's the cost of doing business.

If the Class Action Suit goes ahead, I bet a loss will cost them a few orders of magnitude more than a lawsuit with the government would have.

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Class Action Suit goes ahead, I bet a loss will cost them a few orders of magnitude more than a lawsuit with the government would have.

That raises an interesting question. Is there anything in the world I could possibly care less about?

I wasn't terribly upset when Comet Holmes briefly lost its ion tail- but since that happened in space, I suppose it doesn't count as "in the world".

This is complete horseshit

[leereyno]

Either the wiretapping was legal, or it was not.

That is what must be determined conclusively.

If it was legal, then there is nothing to grant immunity for.

If it was not legal, then the telco companies are the least of our problems. They should of course still be nailed for it. Just because it is a government agency that is directing your company to commit a crime, does not mean that you will be protected from the other agencies in our government, or from the consequences of that crime.

At the end of the day the sad truth of the matter is that our enemies overseas are nowhere near as dangerous to the well being of our nation as our domestic enemies, many of whom are in government. We are at war. Unfortunately we are in a war which is largely undefined, at least by official sources. It is called the "war on terror." This is a lie. That is declaring a war on an activity without ever identifying the persons responsible for that activity. If someone was tracking mud into your house, declaring a war on mud without ever addressing the person tracking it in would result in nothing, except perhaps a lot of mopping. You have to define your enemy before you can successfully wage war against him.

Our enemies are those elements in the Muslim world who wish to see Islam, and particularly islamofascism, conquer the world. This isn't a war against terror, or even terrorists really. This is a war against people and groups and nations, who wish to destroy our civilization, our societies, and replace each with their own. Terrorism is but one of many strategies they employ to accomplish this. This is who we are at war with because this is who is waging war upon us, and upon the west as a whole.

Within our own nation, and our own government, there are those who seek to help our enemies overseas. They do this for a variety of reasons, but primarily because they believe that the enemy of their enemy is their friend. They have no special love for the Islamofascists. In most instances they would be mortal enemies. But both are enemies of liberal democracy, so they're working together to destroy it. Who is this internal enemy that is working with our enemies overseas? This enemy has many names, and many faces. It is not so much a singular enemy as much as an ad hoc swarm of smaller enemies, some of whom are almost as much at odd with one another as they are with us. Principle among these enemies are crypto-marxists. Then you have your socialists, gramscian marxists, and a whole slew of other groups and ideologies that can be collectively known as the political left. Not all self-described leftists are of course a part of this swarm, but the majority are. Others are unconsciously working in concert with them without understanding their intentions. These are generally known as "useful idiots."

These are people who attempt to color everything that the president and his administration are doing as an assault on the American people. There is of course room for honest criticism of this administration, but that isn't what these people are about. They're about weakening our nation from within so that we will be less able to fight our external foes. No nation is ever conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within, and that is exactly what their game plan is.

This is just the cold war all over again in many ways. In fact it would be more honest to say that the cold war never really ended. The Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight, but its allies here in the states never threw in the towel. Those allies are still hard at work on their long march through our institutions, weakening and destroying from within. Now that a new foe has surfaced, they're working overtime.

But none of this answers the question of whether these wiretaps were legal or not. The Bush administration knows all too well that our internal enemies will use the legal system to attack from within. If this administration did not verify the legality of what they were plann

Re:This is complete horseshit

[AlamedaStone]

This is the new Limbaugh meme, right? Progressives are really the old school Commie sympathizers, who have weaseled their way into key government positions to undermine REAL Amurricuns? Is it Zionism, or Islamofascists? Or maybe the Mexicans... it's so hard to keep track of all the paranoid, xenophobic rhetoric!

Want me to top off that kool-aid for you?

Re:This is complete horseshit

[Anonymous Coward]

"This is a war against people and groups and nations, who wish to destroy our civilization, our societies, and replace each with their own."

Uhm, to the rest of the world that looks like the position the US has taken. Above all others, you just described the current US policy to replace other cultures and belief systems, etc with their own. And the US is the _only_ country doing that. Point a finger at someone else and there are 4 pointing back at yourself.

Re:This is complete horseshit

[Sergeant Pepper]

Then you have your socialists, gramscian marxists, and a whole slew of other groups and ideologies that can be collectively known as the political left. Not all self-described leftists are of course a part of this swarm, but the majority are. Others are unconsciously working in concert with them without understanding their intentions. These are generally known as "useful idiots."

These are people who attempt to color everything that the president and his administration are doing as an assault on the American people. There is of course room for honest criticism of this administration, but that isn't what these people are about. They're about weakening our nation from within so that we will be less able to fight our external foes. No nation is ever conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within, and that is exactly what their game plan is.

This is just the cold war all over again in many ways. In fact it would be more honest to say that the cold war never really ended. The Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight, but its allies here in the states never threw in the towel. Those allies are still hard at work on their long march through our institutions, weakening and destroying from within. Now that a new foe has surfaced, they're working overtime. Then you have your fascists, totalitarians, dictators, and a whole slew of other groups and ideologies that can collectively be known as the political right. Not all self-described righties are a part of this swarm, but the majority are. Others are unconsciously working in concert without understanding their intentions. These are generally known as "useful idiots."

These are the people who attempt to color everything that the president and his administration are doing as "necessary for the sake of security." There is, of course, room for honest praise of this administration, but that isn't what these people are about. They're about weakening our nation from within so that we will be less able to fight them when they assume power. No nation is ever conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within, and that is exactly what their game plan is.

This is just the Cold War all over again in many ways. In fact it would be more honest to say that the Cold War never ended. The Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight, but its allies in the states never threw in the towel. These allies are hard at work on their long march driving our country into the ground - demolishing the constitutional freedoms that set us apart from the Soviet Union and sinking us into just as much debt as the Soviet Union was in, the debt that caused them to collapse under their own weight.



Look at that, I can take every word you said and make it apply to the right! You, sir, are a tool. You're an unthinking tool for the fools who subscribe all the demons of the world to the "leftists". Does the left have their problems? Yes. Does the right? Yes. But to blame one side for all of the problems is ridiculous - no matter what side it is. I'll admit it. I'm socially and economically liberal. And yet I do not appear to be blinded by that fact, unlike yourself. You seem to be asserting that Islamofascists want America to be a communist nation. Wouldn't they rather it be a fascist nation? You're so blinded by your hate of the left that you cannot see the problems that exist on the right. Neither side is perfect.

Re:This is complete horseshit

[Creepy Crawler]

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Re:This is complete horseshit

[Creepy Crawler]

In actuality, neither side fights and toils for "The People".

No side advocates for smaller government (although individuals sometimes do).

No side fights for more freedoms.

No side cares except for their own.

Re:This is complete horseshit

[jefu]

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

But then too :
Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.

Stupid

[phalse phace]

So far, it seems like it's either give the telcos immunity or have taxpayers pay for any legal expenses or damages awarded against the telcos.

Specter suggested granting "indemnification" to telephone companies who allegedly cooperated with the government's surveillance regimes in violation of federal privacy laws. That would mean lawsuits could go forward, but taxpayers would be responsible for covering any legal expenses or damage awards against the communications companies. Damages could run into the tens of billions of dollars if the suits are successful, according to Senate Intelligence committee estimates.

Re:Stupid

[Timothy Brownawell]

So far, it seems like it's either give the telcos immunity or have taxpayers pay for any legal expenses or damages awarded against the telcos.

Specter suggested granting "indemnification" to telephone companies who allegedly cooperated with the government's surveillance regimes in violation of federal privacy laws. That would mean lawsuits could go forward, but taxpayers would be responsible for covering any legal expenses or damage awards against the communications companies. Damages could run into the tens of billions of dollars if the suits are successful, according to Senate Intelligence committee estimates.

... you know, that *almost* makes sense. "Sorry, our bad. Since it's our fault, we'll take any punishments for you." Which might actually be OK, except for the conflict of interest from this being the government saying that and the fact that any punishments will be much less effective deterrents against a government than against a corporation.

Re:Stupid

[Skreech]

On the other hand, the people are responsible by tolerating a government that does things like this.

Doesn't really matter

[H3lldr0p]

what version is passed by the House or the Senate. It will come down to the conference committee which creates the final bill that is sent to the president to sign. Whatever those people want is what we will get. As the reference says this is an ad-hoc committee so there is no telling who will be seated for it.

Lawmakers Delay Taco Immunity Vote

[rbanzai]

I swear that's what I saw when I first looked at the headline!

Re:Lawmakers Delay Taco Immunity Vote

[Grandiloquence]

Luckily there aren't any lobbyists shilling for Big Taco.

Re:Lawmakers Delay Taco Immunity Vote

[g-san]

Just remember if the taco did nothing illegal then it should not need immunity. Guacamole maybe, but not immunity.

Above the Law?

[handy_vandal]

Does it make sense (from government's point of view) to treat corporations as above the law?

Maybe -- if, from a future perspective, it turns out that corporations are the successors to nation-states.

-kgj

Re:Above the Law?

[iminplaya]

The corporations ARE the nation-states. More like pirate empires really. Their only purpose being to insure the profits of their most elite "citizens", and amuse the slaves to keep them distracted.

Court vs government

[BlueParrot]

The government makes the laws, the police investigate/arrest people suspected of breaking it, and the courts decide if someone should be punished. So why the fuck is the government about to decide if the telcos should be punished or not? Even if they made a law to give them imunity, surely that should apply only to future wrongdoings... Retroactively changing the law is only acceptable under very exceptional circumstances. Of course, these days retroactively raising the income tax could probably be justified as "national security", so it is not as if it is surprising...

To much information to process.

[3seas]

The whole thing suggest that we have the technology to analyze such a massive amount of constantly renewing information.

Assume that we do have such computing power, what would be better, more productive, perhaps even disease solving applications of such computing power?
Now is it possible to extract and identify in such a massive constant flow of information what would be coded communication, coded into normal everyday phrases that only the receiver would recognize the meaning?

This spying wasn't to find terrorist. It was to get an overview of public opinion and public intelligence and for the use of the Bush administration intent on manipulation of the news media via scare tactic of the antrax threat. They had control over the news media, they needed to know what to have them tell the public.

There is this issue of the "Trillion Dollar bet" http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2704stockmarket.html
About the winners and even more about the losers such as enron, worldcom, etc...
But also about the retaliation reason/excuse of those who participated in the 9/11 WTC fall. Building 7 contained relevant SEC information and that building was intentionally taken down by US. Destroying the records being review for criminal activity.

Anyways, it really helps to have a "clear channel" view of the American public, when you want to manipulate them, deceive them.

The act was not against any individual but against the American public and the immunity BS is still applying cover-up tactics as it presents the matter in a false light.

No impunity

[Mr. Freeman]

It's your responsibility as an American citizen/company to fight taking any measures you feel are unconstitutional or illegal. I'm not even saying that they have to go far as to break a single law. A telco with the insane amount of money they have should have hired lawyers to fight the orders to comply with the government. (If they weren't even orders then the company doesn't even need lawyers, they just shouldn't have given up the info).

The telcos didn't do this for their own selfish reasons and they should pay the price for doing so. That said, the government is also responsible for using the telcos like this in the first place and they should definitely receive some type of punitive action. Sadly, this isn't going to happen until the next administration takes over. And then only if Bush doesn't "pardon all individuals who may have committed some type of crime during their action in the U.S. gov." on his last day.

Re:No impunity

[backbyter]

only if Bush doesn't "pardon all individuals who may have committed some type of crime during their action in the U.S. gov." on his last day.

I don't think he has enough ink or stamina to do all of them on his last day.

Re:No impunity

[frank_adrian314159]

The telcos didn't do this for their own selfish reasons and they should pay the price for doing so.

I hope you mean that they did do it for their own selfish interest. They got paid $1000 to initiate each tap and $750/month to maintain it. The phone companies raked in a buttload of money by not checking on (or ignoring) what the law is. They deserve everything a court can throw at them (even revocation of their corporate charter). They knew that they were breaking the law and they charged very well for it.

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoever modded this troll is an idiot, it's clearly relevant.

Obvious Answer...

[tkrotchko]

The obvious answer is everybody in Washington *does* know what they Telco's did, but some think the scandal may cause a lot of damage to a lot of politicians.

Nothing else makes sense.

Re:To much information to fit in my tiny brain

[Anonymous Coward]

(inhales deeply) "Hey dude...take another hit. This shit is great. Here, let me show my new hat. Made all of tin foil. Isn't it awesome?"

You forgot to mention the JFK cover up and TWA 800. Come one now, you can do better than that.

Not "the government" - the Executive

[Infonaut]

So is it fault of telcoms or government?

The Executive branch told the telecoms. The telecoms, who have been working with government agencies for years, very clearly knew this was illegal. They went along with it anyway. Congress was not involved in the warrantless surveillance program.

The rule of law means that the laws apply to everyone. It means that if your government asks you to do something illegal, you have a legal obligation not to obey the government. AT&T, et. al. are used to being sued by and suing the government. It's not like they're afraid of going to court. They made money circumventing the Constitution.

They should not be given amnesty, so the courts can determine the extent of their liability.

democrats in action!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just hilarious to watch the democrat congress do such a wonderful job of opposing the white house.

What a bunch of idiots, along with those who voted for them.

To save us the trouble of finding out

[jfengel]

This would be an ugly, ugly case in court. The government will insist at every turn that it would compromise national security to either dismiss the case or deny access to information and people.

So there would be investigations for years, which ultimately would accomplish nothing, all with the goal of possibly punishing a company who will claim that they thought they were doing the patriotic thing.

From a political point of view, Republicans think that they were just defending national security (and therefore deserve to be let off the hook) and some Democrats think that they're going to be portrayed as soft on terrorism.

I'm not saying I'm happy with this reasoning, but that's what's going on in their skulls. Not that you're any happier now that you know it. Sorry.

Bush is just trying to perfect his Ling Rush strat

[Anonymous Coward]

So much fuss over something that began so innocuously. This is not about terrorism. One of the telecoms sending data to the republican administration is AT&T. And you know what that means, right? AT&T hosts Blizzard's battlenet forums. You see, it's really only because Bush wants to see the game replays from players on Blizzard's Battlenet, so that he can improve his microing for his ling rush strategy on Starcraft.

Duh. Anyone can see that's what's really behind this. Bush just loves his starcraft!

Something about the "nuclear launch detected" sound effect when he nukes the Toss and ZErg makes him feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Nazis weren't punished if they just took orders

[Anonymous Coward]

Should a private company now be punished for cooperating with the government? When they would have gone out of business if they hadn't?

Forgot a implicit statement

[Johnny Mnemonic]

They should not be given amnesty, so the courts can determine the extent of their liability.

I think you forgot to add: and when they are found to liable to the tune of several billions of dollars, they'll be damn sure to be acting within the law in the future, and not just acting on the whim of any single legislator.

And that'll go for any other organization too, that decides that a permission slip signed by the President himself is good enough. It's not. In fact, that's why we got rid of the King in the first place, and replaced him with a three part government, each of which can check the other.

Odd, isn't it ... ?

[Infonaut]

... that so many people need to be reminded of this:

In fact, that's why we got rid of the King in the first place, and replaced him with a three part government, each of which can check the other.

And odder still that so many people seem to crave a unitary executive, a king by another name. It seems too many Americans take their blessings for granted, and are willing to simply throw them away because it's too much effort to deal with the messiness of governing. Easier to have one guy in charge. That way the voter bears no responsibility, and everyone has a scapegoat when things go wrong. No need to look in the mirror. No need to read up on the issues, or send letters, or protest. Everyone can be smart and smug and self-righteous, while the unitary executive fucks us into the ground.

Re:Odd, isn't it ... ?

[Johnny Mnemonic]

And odder still that so many people seem to crave a unitary executive.

Even our Founding Fathers preferred a "benevolent dictator", probably because a single individual is just that much more effective and efficient at getting shit done. The problem is that unless you can guarantee the first part, you can't suffer the first.

And given enough generations of relatively benign government, the populace may eventually forget the risks of a dictator and the necessity that "benevolence" needs to be assured through power of law backed by force, that's it's not an intrinsic trait of those that wish to lead.

Get 'em up against the wall!

[Anonymous Coward]

Government agencies said "Help us spying or you will be against law". And now government says "You were helping us spying, you were against law". So is it fault of telcoms or government?

Any true patriot would have stood up to the government and said "Go fuck yourselves!" Liberty isn't granted. If you take it for granted, you won't have it very long. You have to stand up for yourself, be ever vigilant, and assert your liberties or they will be taken away from you. In the words of George W. Bush, "You're either with us, or your against us." The telecoms are clearly against us. That makes them terrorists. Plain and simple. Lock their asses up in Guantanamo.