Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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???
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
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.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
And more: the mobster would do time as well. So, why isn't the president?
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
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.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
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.
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.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
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.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
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.