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."

Comments

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: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: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:

[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: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.