Slashdot Mirror


ACLU Warns of Next Pass At Telecom Immunity

The ACLU has reportedly uncovered another pass at telecom immunity and is urging concerned citizens to speak out against what they call a "dangerous backroom deal." "But now, word comes that House leadership may be working hand-in-hand with Senator Jay Rockefeller, the Democratic Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who has spearheaded efforts to give immunity to law-breaking phone companies that provided mountains of customer data to the government without warrants. As discussions continue, it's critical that House leadership avoid buckling to pressure from the White House or Senator Rockefeller at all costs. House leadership — and every representative — need to draw a line in the sand, by rejecting any compromise that would undo the achievement we fought so hard for in February."

7 of 201 comments (clear)

  1. Stupid question... by nebaz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does Congress even have the power to grant immunity? They think they have the power to do anything they want, but is providing blanket immunity even constitutional?

    --
    Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
    1. Re:Stupid question... by postbigbang · · Score: 5, Interesting

      While the Supreme Court has the nexus to declare what might be ex post facto, or un-equal protection under the law, you first have to have the nexus to be an injured party. As long as the lists are secret, you will never know, and therefore cannot have nexus until the FIA brings it to light, if not redacted, 25 years from now. By then, everyone will hopefully have forgotten (is the hope, I'm sure).

      So, litigation is moot under the proposed laws. That's why it's important to fight the immunity and hit the congressional urge (and heavily lobbied) to offer the telcos immunity. My view is that it'll be weaseled in somehow, because we have no guts, and no glory in the Congress. I wish it were otherwise. Vote in November.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
  2. What's wrong with investigations? by copponex · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If the telecoms don't have anything to hide, why would they be afraid of a few questions?

    Uh-oh, Big Brother. It looks like that logic has a nasty way of working both ways. The only way to prevent this from happening in the future is to keep immunity out, sue every single telecom into bankruptcy, and throw every member of the Administration who was involved into prison.

    Pff... hahahahah. Alright, it was worth a good laugh. Now please, go back to watching your televisions. The Factor is coming right up! Top news story? Reverend Jeremiah Wright is not an "honest man," and makes money selling lies...

  3. That's why I donate to the ACLU by FatSean · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If they're going to come for me, they're going to come for me.

    Why be a pussy?

    --
    Blar.
  4. Re:1984.... by smittyoneeach · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, if we delegated the power encompassed by the IRS, the SSA, and the various other control mechanisms in place from the Fed to the states, we could undo a lot of arguably wrong-headed old precedent.
    Creating a "new" tradition of un-intrusive Federal government would really put the "P" in Progress for many of us.

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  5. Re:What does it matter? by jschimpf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ahem, the Telco's have hordes of lawyers to advise them if something is legal or not. What they did was NOT legal under the law when they did it. Remember this is a country of laws not of men, you cannot be told to do illegal things and then NOT be held responsible. The US government cannot order you to do illegal things. (Remember we hung German officials after WW II for "Only following orders") In any case these suites against the telcos are not for $ they are to discover the truth about what was done to us the citizens of this country.

  6. my spin by vague_ascetic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am one who has for many years believed that the two party system was the ultimate root cause for the Nation's ills, and have also loudly asserted that if your vote was based on a "lesser of two evils" decision, without question, you have voted for evil.

    The Bush Administration, and concomitant GOP Congressional dereliction, has taught me a bitter lesson though. I must now choke back the bile that rises in my throat, whenever I long nostalgically for the time in America's past, when a President's lies were only about acts of consensual sex, a cum-stained blue dress, and tobacco products with odd exotic aromatics; instead of a President's lies about Natural Liberties, Immoral War, and the Blood-stained Iraqi Sands.

    This is the cause for a correction in my analysis. While it is wrong to vote for a lesser of two evils; a very good argument can be made to support a vote for the lamer of two evils. The GOP has not yet begun to experience the pain that is necessary to purge the excessive resident evil within. There need be a return to a state of polar equilibrium in quantities of evil, or there need be the end to the Republican Party, as a clear and present danger to the people's liberty. There is no third way.

    The oath was: against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic, or to condense it down to a Bushified black and white: are you with the Friends of Liberty or Against Us. Choose wisely...

    --
    Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron