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.
On Wednesday, a number of Republican leaders, including Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) and Peter King (R-N.Y.), began circulating what's known as a "discharge" petition
Lamar Smith -- $679,583 from Communic/Electronics industry
Peter Hoekstra -- $42,685 from Communic/Electronics industry
Peter King -- $140,072 from Communic/Electronics industry
"More than 66 days have passed since House Democrats allowed a key piece of terrorist surveillance legislation to expire--not because they had concerns with the bill, but because they were seemingly more concerned that not enough trial lawyers would be able to file enough expensive and frivolous lawsuits against U.S. telecom firms," Republican whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said in a statement.
Roy Blunt -- $846,327 from Communic/Electronics industry
Not to mention that Jesus himself supposedly said that you can only serve one lord - money, or God. But then again, they probably read the Bible like they read a novel - read the first couple
of chapters with great interest, and then skip to the last to see how the story ends.
The success and the payback the Democrats experienced in overturning this train-wreck of a bill experienced, they aren't in the mood to roll over any more. Even the telcos prefer the Democratic version which grants the companies the ability to present evidence in their own defence.
And that is what scares the Bush administration most: transparency. They know that they are in a world of trouble, and the GOP is now looking at a sea-change as strong as when Roosevelt succeeded Hoover. It will be a long time before Republicans can overcome the legacy of Lee Atwater/ Karl Rove politics...
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
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.
I'll even give you a hint... where do TelCo's get their money?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
This is the relevant passage:
...FBI Director Robert Mueller continued that push on Wednesday, but he wouldn't go so far as to say those "private partners" would stop installing requested wiretaps unless certain legal protection is granted.
To some extent, Mueller is stating the obvious: Federal law requires telephone and Internet companies to comply with lawful wiretap court orders or lawful certifications from the attorney general, with stiff penalties for noncompliance. But Mueller said in various ways that he was concerned that lack of retroactive liability protection would harm the government's "relationships" with telephone companies -- which seems to leave in doubt whether all of the administration's requests were legal.
The seemingly reluctant admission came during pointed questioning by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Specter, the committee's ranking member, has proposed an amendment--which has so far been unsuccessful--to a controversial spy law update that would allow lawsuits alleging illegal spying by telephone companies to continue, except with government lawyers substituted in the companies' place.
FBI Director Robert Mueller said he disagreed with that approach, arguing it would provide a "disincentive" for communications companies to team up with federal terrorism investigations.
Then the following exchange ensued:
Specter: A disincentive, OK, but do you think they would stop?
Mueller: I think it is a disincentive...
Specter: But do you think they would stop?
Mueller: I think it would hamper our relationships, yes.... I do think it would hinder our relationships.
Specter: Disincentive, hamper, hinder, but I don't hear you say it would stop....
Mueller: I'm not going to say it's going to stop, but I do believe delay is detrimental to the safety of the country. Delay and lack of clarity, lack of simplicity guiding our relationships inhibits our ability to get the information we need on a daily basis.
...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
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
Tell you what -- the officers of the company dictated that illegal policy, and considering the phone company's history and how long those guys have been around, they knew damned well what they were doing.
Take ALL their assets. Bankrupt them, distribute the proceeds, THEN jail the sonzabitches.
Infuriate left and right
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.
OTOH, NOT granting them immunity is the only way we are ever going to get to the bottom of the wiretapping scandal, since suits against the govt. have been dismissed for lack of standing. (Lack of standing has been ruled, because the plaintiff's have not been allowed to collect or present evidence that the wiretapping took place at all. A stupid Catch-22.)
SirWired
In this case? Shareholders, ultimately. Telecoms' prices are already set at the profit-maximizing point. If they could make more money by raising prices, they would already have done so.
The benefit of liability would be that next time a shareholder chose which telecom company to invest in, he'd pick one that made the most credible promises not to spy on its customers, and crime would be deterred.
You can't sue the owners of an incorporated company as they are shielded. That's why companies incorporate. You have to sue the company itself as it is its own entity.Now, if you can find a telco that allowed wire taps and is a sole proprietorship, then have at it! Good luck in finding one of those.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
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.
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.