US Senate Votes Immunity For Telecoms

Ktistec Machine writes to let us know that the telecom companies are one step closer to getting off the hook for their illegal collusion with the US government. Today the US Senate passed, by a filibuster-proof majority of 67 to 31, a revised FISA bill that grants retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies that helped the government illegally tap American network traffic. If passed by both houses and signed by the President, this would effectively put an end to the many lawsuits against these companies (about 40 have been filed). The House version of the bill does not presently contain an immunity provision. President Bush has said he will veto any such bill that reaches his desk without the grant of immunity. We've discussed the progress of the immunity provision repeatedly.

Comments

Stunned

[cmefford]

Well, that about wraps it up for (insert whatever right you thought you had).

Re:Stunned

[jo42]

I keep telling you guys to practice your "Heil Bush!". Yet I keep getting mocked and voted/modded down. One of these days I'll be going "I told you so!".

Re:Stunned

[Shining Celebi]

Well, that about wraps it up for (insert whatever right you thought you had).

It's not over yet. It goes back to the House and into conferencing. The House is adamantly against telecom immunity; last week, the House leadership sent a letter to the Senate condemning it. I believe there's a strong chance that telecom immunity won't be able to make it out of the House, but it might be a good thing to call your Representatives (and Senators, since they're on the conferencing committee too.)

Re:Stunned

[mea37]

Punishing the telecom companies for cooperating with the government wouldn't actually protect anyone's rights anyway. The grant of immunity is a corollary problem; the root problem is that the government would engage in a warrantless wiretap program to begin with, and until that is addressed we will continue to be short-changed on our rights as citizens.

Simply withholding immunity really just moves the problem around a bit. Now the shareholders of (for example) AT&T bear the cost of decisions they didn't make, approve, or know about. Perhaps they could turn around and file a shareholder suit (on the grounds that AT&T worked against shareholder interests by cooperating with and being held liable for the wiretap program), though I'm told those types of suits aren't very common these days.

While we do hold that "just following orders" isn't a suitable defense for war crimes, I wonder if the balance between the moral/ethical breach of compliance vs. pressure applied by the government is the same in this case. (Do we actually know how much pressure or threat, if any, was used to get the telecoms to cooperate?) I'd see some merit to the argument that liability should be pushed back onto the government itself.

At any rate, I find it surprising that we would expect more backbone out of corporations dealing with the American government than we expect out of them when dealing with, say, the Chinese government. If we tolerate Google "playing by China's rules" when all they stand to lose is their entry into the Chinese market, then why would we expect better of AT&T when they would be running afoul of their home country's government?

What I'd like to see -- and you'll have to forgive me for any imprecision in the details here, as IANAL -- is a John Doe suit filed against the individual(s) within (for example) AT&T who actually made and authorized the decisions to compromise customers' privacy. Naturally those individuals would try to hide behind the shield of corporate liability; I would hope (though I can't remember if it's the case) that taking actions outside of -- and even contrary to -- the corporation's interests would make a case for PCV.

Re:Stunned

[Anonymous Coward]

You Sir are a corporate shill.

At a time where corporate law suits against single citizen's is at an all time high, you suggest that we (the people) should have no recorse against illegal activities of corporations? Just becuase 'someone else' asked them to do it.

Absolutely not sir.

Both the government that asked them to commit something illegal and the people that actually commited the illegal act (this is proven they knew it to be illegal, as some companies REFUSED on the grounds of it being illegal).

Its called a conspiracy sir.

All parties are at fault.

(sorry about spelling at work using IE yuck).

Re:Stunned

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem pretty sure of yourself for someone who hasn't read the secret annexes to Directive 51.

Re:Stunned

[poetmatt]

For the people who don't know, here's what directive 51 is about, and how bush can stop elections and control the entire USofA without any checks from congress in any form (in fact, he'd be able to control congress). So all he has to do is provoke a war enough for him to want to declare a catastrophic emergency.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

I've already asked about this and this was the response from Obama (the "official one" from when I emailed him using the whitehouse mail thing). Copied verbatim, and just noticed the spelling error too. Ironic.

Additioanlly, I would like to address your concerns about the National Security Presidential Directive 51 and the Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20, signed by President Bush in May, 2007.

As you know, these directives establish procedures for continuity of the federal government in the event of a catastrophic emergency. "Continuity of government" is an effort to ensure the federal government can continue to perform essential functions during a time of emergency. Additionally, "catastrophic emergency" is defined as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."

I agree that Congress has an important obligation to monitor how the executive branch exercises its authority. The system of checks and balances enshrined in our Constitution is central to our democracy and protects us from a concentration of power in any one branch of government. I will continue to follow this issue closely with my colleagues on the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs in an effort to ensure accountability and lawfulness, and I look forward to staying in touch during this process.

Re:Stunned

[Sponge Bath]

While we do hold that "just following orders" isn't a suitable defense for war crimes

AG Mukassey does not agree with that. Last night's interview on Lehrer News Hour had him state that no one can be investigated or charged for waterboarding because previous AG Gonzales said it was legal and that absolves anyone who followed that advice of any crime.

I don't agree with that, but that is the stance of the country's highest law enforcement official.

Re:Stunned

[Gravatron]

Sorry, but the telecom's had a legal and ethical duty to demand a warrent, and if one could not be presented, to decline to cooperate. Anyone who didn't knew they were breaking the law, and should have to face the results. They deserved to lose millions, as money seems to be the only thing corperations understand, and losing a ton of it would have caused the shareholders to demand future adheriance to the law.

Instead, one of the foundations of our nation is eroded, that is the citizen's protection from search without warrents, and a major crime will go unpunished. This tells the citizens that we are at the mercy of the executive branch, who has time and time again showed that they are above the law.

Re:Stunned

[Xaositecte]

Here's what it boils down to:

1. Corporate leaders are all about the bottom line. I have no beef with this whatsoever, as it tends to create more efficient organizations that end up benefitting the consumer. Of course there are exceptions to that, monopolies, perversions of the system, but let us for the moment assume that the telcos are operating a normal entities in the capitalist system.

2. Corporate leaders are going to take whatever stand they believe will benefit their shareholders. Shareholders are routinely rewarded and\or punished for the decisions of corporate leaders which they have virtually no influence on. This decision is no different.

3. Holding telcos legally responsible for breaking laws, especially in circumstances where not breaking the law was an acceptable response (as evidenced by the fact that some telcos did do just that) will encourage all telcos to respect wiretap laws in the future.

4. Conversely, not holding telcos responsible for breaking laws will encourage more of them to break laws in the future, since it has been proven there is little or no risk, and a goodly amount of incentives for playing ball with the government.

5. The logical conclusion of allowing telcos to get away with breaking the law, as long as the government is the entity asking them to break it, is that eventually all telcos will either participate willingly in illegal wiretapping, or be unable to compete with their less scrupulous competitors, and be driven out of business.

Therefore:

We should corporations responsible for breaking laws, or be prepared to accept an America where illegal wiretapping is widespread, and goes unpunished. Even if you buy the "it's necessary to fight terrorism" bullshit they're feeding you right now, this is the sort of power that's never going to go away once it's institutionalised.

Don't I feel suckered

[bconway]

I helped vote in this Democratic congress under the belief they would change things, and the best they could do was come up with 31 votes? Business as usual, I guess.

Presidential Candidates Votes

[vitaflo]

In case you're curious of how the respective candidates for president voted on the amendment to block retroactive immunity:

McCain: No
Obama: Yes
Clinton: Did not vote

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/2/votes/15/

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[KublaiKhan]

Well, I guess I have to support Obama. Clinton doesn't have the stones, and McCain's actively antithetical to a free society.

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[evil agent]

Clinton: Did not vote

Hillary has been going on and on about the number of times Obama did not vote when he was in the Illinois Senate. Hopefully he'll use this as ammunition.

Re:Presidential Candidates Votes

[Svartalf]

In a typical amount of political weasel-speak, they worded the motion in such a way you had to re-read it at least once to parse
precisely what they intended to do.

It was worded to STRIKE the immunity provision. A Yea vote was one where they were to hold the telcos accountable for
civil violations of the law with regards to FISA. A No vote was to give the telcos a get out of jail free card.

McCain voted to give them a free out.

Clinton didn't bother to vote.

Obama voted to keep them accountable for their illicit activities. (Which, unfortunately, would be an accurate appraisal of the telcos' position right now...)

I suspect Obama, even if he wanted to give them a way out, just bought himself quite a bit of street cred with
a LOT of people if there's something of a big deal made about this.

Glimmer of hope

[techpawn]

The provision was not in the house passed bill. So, it has to go to committee for compromise. If we're lucky this can be killed there, and the final bill will be vetoed. They're on the radar of everyone and know what they do shines on their candidate now more than ever. So, who knows they may do what their constituents want.

But, my pockets aren't as deep as brother bells... So, I'm not betting on it

According to the article

[91degrees]

Sen Bond said "permitting lawsuits against the companies would ... discourage the private sector from cooperating with the government in the future."

Yes it would do that. On the flip side, it would encourage them to obey the law. Personally I think that cooperating with the government when the government is breaking the law is something that should, in general, be discouraged*

*Note: For cultures who miss the point, this is called "understatment"

Re:Who voted for it?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00015

Re:Who voted for it?

[bconway]

Worth noting: Barack Obama voted against telco immunity. Hillary Clinton couldn't be bothered to show up.

info request

[Tom]

Why are retroactive laws even possible in the US system? I'm really wondering about that. Where I come from, the laws at the time of your action count, both for and against you.

What's next? Retro-actively making something illegal and then putting you in jail for it?

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[Shakrai]

Is there any chance the House will stop this?

Pffft, the Senate failed us and you think the House won't? The House has become a rubber stamp for whatever the party leadership wants in the last few years -- under both the Democrats and the Republicans. So no, unless Nancy Pelosi herself is personally opposed to this I would assume that it will pass easily.

Fucking Republicans impeached Clinton even though they knew full well they couldn't convict him -- and yet the Democrats don't even have the backbone to stand up to a veto threat by the White House before they knuckle over. Isn't there some middle ground between being the White House bitch and impeachment?

Is there Immunity for Congressmen???

[RobBebop]

Is there anything to prevent lawsuits against the government officials who authorized illegal wiretapping in the first place? It doesn't even make sense to hold the telecoms responsible for following orders from Uncle Sam. What does make sense is to hold Uncle Sam accountable for his actions to order the illegal taps (instead of following judicial procedure and getting authority/permission).

Bush even talked about this in the State of the Union last month. He said, "We have to extend the Bill that let's us track terrorists on February 1." As far as I know, that day came and went. But let's get a list of Congressmen who voted for the original illegal wiretapping bill that caused this whole mess. Target those "ENEMIES OF FREEDOM", and make sure people know who they are to prevent them from keeping their seats in Congress during the next election.

(you know, I never understood why Congress doesn't have terms limits. Poor Ted Kennedy has been there so long that he slept through most of the last State of the Union address).

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[TripMaster Monkey]

Protest marches don't work when the media is controlled.

Last year, there was one big-ass march in D.C. protesting the war.

What media deigned to even report on it put the attendance at 10% of the true number.

March all you like...it doesn't matter. We lost this country when we lost the independence of the media.

Re:just great

[MBGMorden]

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/2/votes/15/

As linked in another post. Obama voted to strike the immunity clause from the bill.

NO Republicans voted against. Lindsey Graham, one of my state's (SC) senators, was the only Republican not to vote at all. I'm hoping that this was because he was against it but couldn't go against the party so much as to vote against it, but we'll see.

Pardon me?

[HTH NE1]

Is the only reason why Bush cares so much that Congress grant this immunity instead of just issuing his own Presidential Pardon for the telecoms that he can't pardon them for ongoing and future violations?

Re:Pardon me?

[Shakrai]

just issuing his own Presidential Pardon for the telecoms that he can't pardon them for ongoing and future violations

Unless I'm completely mistaken, the President has zero authority to issue a "pardon" for a civil action. The teleco's aren't being charged with criminal violations of the law (that would require the Government to actually enforce the laws...), they are being sued by individuals and groups seeking discovery to find out what actually happened and possible monetary reparations.

Re:Who voted for it?

[Red Flayer]

To strike it, Obama voted for it, Clinton did not vote, McCain against it.

That's a little confusing, since the meaning of "it" changes during your sentence. Obama voted to strike the immunity measure, McCain voted to keep the immunity measure, and Clinton was too busy kissing babies to vote.

U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

[Jane Q. Public]

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

It doesn't get much clearer than that!

(For those of you who do not know legalese, "ex post facto" means "retroactive".

Re: U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

[Black Parrot]

It doesn't get much clearer than that! What makes you think one part of the Constitution would stop them when they're voting to ignore another part?

This is not the will of the people

[soren100]

This is totally unconstitutional. And I can guarantee you that there are extremely few citizens out there thinking that telecommunications companies should not be held accountable for breaking the law and helping our government subvert the Constitution. Senator Chris Dodd has to filibuster his own party to try to prevent this from happening, and he said he did it because there was so much concern from his constituents.

Amendment IV of our Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I would make a joke here about not welcoming our corpo-government overlords, but I wish I could find more of a sense of humor about this type of thing. The founders of our country knew this was going to happen, and worked extremely hard to avoid it, and the citizens of our country are sleep-walking right into it.

Here's Senator Dodd's thoughts about telecom immunity :

The President has no right to secretly eavesdrop on the conversations and activities of law abiding American citizens and anyone who has aided and abetted him in these illegal activities should be held accountable, said Dodd. It is unconscionable that such a basic right has been violated, and that the President is the perpetrator. I will do everything in my power to stop Congress from shielding this Presidents agenda of secrecy, deception, and blatant unlawfulness.

Re:And the beat goes on.

[ArcherB]

Welcome to the Police State. I know! I had to pass through four armed checkpoints on my way to work today. Two of them searched my trunk... and I don't mean the hatch-back of my car, if you catch my drift. Don't even get me started about the "secret police" that searched my house this morning at 3:00am looking for Obama literature. Thank God I got rid of that! Oh, and I expect I'll get to meet you in the reeducation camp later this week. We all know that you are not allowed to post stuff like that in a police state. /sarc off

You really shouldn't make "police state" claims like that. If you think this is a police state, you obviously have no idea what a true police state is. Displaying such an obscene level of ignorance is probably not in your best interest.

I've seen police states. I've had to pass through checkpoints and answer questions about where I was going, why I was going there and when I plan on being back. The US is not a police state.

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[Red Flayer]

It's not about creating a billion private utopias, it's about creating a country where the majority gets to live the lives the majority wants.

Poppycock.

The tyranny of the majority, despite its popularity, is still a tyranny.

It precisely is about creating the potential for a billion private utopias. Whether an individual ever gets his utopia is up to him... but it's a major misunderstanding of the principles of the US Founding Fathers to believe that majority rule was intended. Much of what is present in the US Constitution is precisely to prevent majority rule.

Incorrect

[Raul654]

This point has already been mentioned on Slashdot before. As I said then, it is incorrect. The prohibition on ex-post facto laws means something cannot be retroactively made illegal; it can, however, be made retroactively legal.

Re:And the beat goes on.

[Captain Splendid]

You know, a police state is not a binary thing. Your post is correct in not conflating the US with, say, Iran, but you could at least admit that the direction the US is heading towards isn't exactly anti-police state either.

Really, are you that much of a pedant that you'll keep arguing over minutiae up until the last possible moment? You're not helping anyone but yourself.

Only 26 Senators voted against this

[WillAffleckUW]

Only 26 US Senators stood up and voted to put a hold on this legislation, including both of Washington State's US Senators and Senator Barack Obama.

Senator Clinton was ... not present.

Well, guess that answers who's tech-friendly.

Re:protest? chance of stopping this?

[UnknowingFool]

Protest marches don't work when the media is controlled.

That's why I like old school solutions. Marching with pitchforks and torches. Looting and pillaging every Starbucks on the way. Ah, I miss the old country.

I hope I speak for most Ron Paul supporters

[Tanman]

when I ask, "Do you think the constitution is an outdated, unimportant document now?"

It amazes me all of his detractors that call him an extremist who is blindly supporting some outdated, irrelevant document -- people who then complain about this stuff being passed. Don't you realize that this is the kind of thing Ron Paul would stop?

Re:Who's on the conferencing committee?

[Red Flayer]

I assume it's not the whole House and Senate - so who will actually be making the decision about whether the House or Senate version gets in the final bill?

Both. The Senate and House must pass identical versions. E.g., there is no final bill until both Houses pass the same bill.

At this point, the Senate has kicked the bill back to the House. The House will need to vote on this version, or a new version, to kick back to the Senate. If the House passes, without change, the version the Senate passed (not likely), then it goes to GWB for signature/veto/pocket veto.

More likely is the House makes a few changes and kicks the bill back to the Senate.

In short, there is no final bill until the House & Senate compromise and each pass an identical bill; it's likely that neither of the current versions will be the final bill, since each house refused to pass the others' version.

The true purpose of the lawsuits

[Chris Burke]

Punishing the telecom companies for cooperating with the government wouldn't actually protect anyone's rights anyway. The grant of immunity is a corollary problem; the root problem is that the government would engage in a warrantless wiretap program to begin with, and until that is addressed we will continue to be short-changed on our rights as citizens.

Yes and these lawsuits are in fact the point of the spear aimed at the root of the problem.

Punishing the telcos and getting damages isn't the important part. It's something that should be done, but it is really just a means to an end. The ultimate point is to find out through discovery what exactly the government did. The aim is to get evidence out into the open, in the public record, of the government's malfeasance.

Once the spear point has pierced the government's veil of secrecy, then we can drive it deeper into the government itself. With the information revealed in the suits, it may be possible to sue the government, get court rulings about the legality of the administration's practices, and ultimately set up the possibility of future prosecution. If it can create enough of a scandal to cost politicians and bureaucrats their careers, while not optimal, that can still serve as a check to keep the government in line for a while.

This is also, ultimately, what the immunity provisions are about. It's nothing to do with protecting telcos from having to pay damages, that's just the means to an end. It's all about preventing anyone from discovering what the government really did -- they even admit it when talking about why the provision is necessary, though of course they couch it in "national security secrets" terms. Bush and team are trying to cover their own ass, and cowardly Congress is going along with it.

By the way, you raise a good point about Google and China. Personally I don't forgive Google, but at the same time I recognize the realities of working with a government like China's, one such reality being that censoring the people is not illegal. At the same time our government is not China's, our government is supposed to respect human rights, and more importantly it is illegal for them not to just as it is illegal for AT&T. And also because our government is not China's, we the people should be able to discover when our government or corporations break the law and demand redress. Which, coming full circle, is exactly what these lawsuits are about.

Last Chance to Stop Amesty

[Doc Ruby]

The House of Reps passed their version of this bill without amnesty. When the two bills go into "conference", wherein the two chambers negotiate how to change their versions to come up with the single version that will be voted on in each chamber, the House can insist on no amnesty. Which, since amnesty did not pass in the Senate by an overwhelming (just a large) majority, the House might succeed in getting.

So sign the petition to pressure the House to stand up for keeping amnesty out of the final bill. It's the last chance you have to keep some privacy rights when on the phone (hi, Dick!).