someone here deserves a good swift kick in the ass, i'm just not sure who.
The Telecoms for agreeing to do this even though it was at best legally questionable
Bush & Co. for authorizing this nonsense.
Or Congress for not doing anything about it sooner.

The bill provides retroactive immunity to telecom companies that helped the government gather intelligence after the Sept. 11 attacks. The current rules expire Saturday.


No immunity. If you break the rules (even for a good reason) then you face the consequences.

No immunity.

Weaver95: The bill provides retroactive immunity to telecom companies that helped the government gather intelligence after the Sept. 11 attacks. The current rules expire Saturday.


No immunity. If you break the rules (even for a good reason) then you face the consequences.

No immunity.

If they really did nothing wrong, then they have nothing to worry about. Right?

Pavia_Resistance: If they really did nothing wrong, then they have nothing to worry about. Right?

NO! That only applies to you Citizen.

Ex post facto used to be unconstitutional back when we had one of those.

and we never torture suspects, which is why we need to keep water boarding as an option for use by our interrogators and grant them immunity.

Oh wait, we did torture at least 5 suspects.

Weaver95: The bill provides retroactive immunity to telecom companies that helped the government gather intelligence after the Sept. 11 attacks. The current rules expire Saturday.


No immunity. If you break the rules (even for a good reason) then you face the consequences.

No immunity.

One thousand times THIS.

No one should be above the law. ESPECIALLY large companies.

You knew it was illegal. You did it anyway. Law is one of those things that need to be enforced equally to carry any meaning.

profanecleric: You knew it was illegal. You did it anyway.

Well, it was very lucrative.

TwoHead: Ex post facto used to be unconstitutional back when we had one of those.

Oh, like YOU never ran out of buttwipe in the middle of the night?

You know this is funny as hell. About the only more screwed up reasoning I heard was some Republican politician saying that the the Bush tax cuts [which everyone knows INCREASES revenue] didn't work because there wasn't a corresponding cut in spending.

I was like WTF, he did not really just say that. How can you say that with a straight face??? How dumb do you think we are? Pick one for fark's sake.

Either it was illegal, or it wasn't. If it was, then we can discuss whether or not you deserve immunity [you don't]. If it wasn't then don't ask for immunity. Simple.

TFA: Lawmakers left town Thursday for a 12-day recess but both sides are working behind the scenes . . . House and Senate Democratic leaders met in Hoyer's office to hammer out plans for a conference in which Republicans will be asked to join, Hoyer said. Republicans say they won't participate.

The Republican leadership's "unh-uh, we're not playin' unless you use OUR rules and OUR funny dice" attitude is really growing on me. How do we convince them that the best way to achieve their goals is simply to decline to participate in government?

/Permanently.

BushCo have increased governmental secrecy to a point we haven't seen in our lifetimes. Do you think secrecy just grows on trees? Heck no, in order to garner all that secrecy unto themselves they had to get it somewhere. Ergo the people's right to privacy had to be stripped away in order to make it so.

It's a zero sum game peoples!

/Dumbya's 'done the math'.

SilentStrider: someone here deserves a good swift kick in the ass, i'm just not sure who.
The Telecoms for agreeing to do this even though it was at best legally questionable
Bush & Co. for authorizing this nonsense.
Or Congress for not doing anything about it sooner.

I really don't understand why the telecoms did it. Didn't any of their lawyers tell them what an actionable position this would put them in? All they had to do was ask the government for a warrant and then they could have turned over anything without risk. Why didn't they do this? What did they gain for not doing this?

The telecoms have whole floors just for the NSA.

profanecleric: Weaver95: The bill provides retroactive immunity to telecom companies that helped the government gather intelligence after the Sept. 11 attacks. The current rules expire Saturday.


No immunity. If you break the rules (even for a good reason) then you face the consequences.

No immunity.

One thousand times THIS.

No one should be above the law. ESPECIALLY large companies.

You knew it was illegal. You did it anyway. Law is one of those things that need to be enforced equally to carry any meaning.


Pops

This fits in here somewhere...

Arthur Jumbles
I really don't understand why the telecoms did it

Some refused, like Qwest. And weren't prosecuted, weren't insulted, weren't threatened. So there goes the entire "essential to national security" argument, as well as the "but we thought it was legal" argument.

The telecoms "did lawful things at the request of the government...

FTFY

Hey, I just did something. Now, what I just did was completely legal, but we should have congress pass a law that gives me immunity for doing it.

5000_gallons_of_toothpaste: and we never torture suspects, which is why we need to keep water boarding as an option for use by our interrogators and grant them immunity.

Oh wait, we did torture at least 5 suspects.

But waterboarding isn't torture.
Except when someone else does it.

Anyone really believe this crap that Bush is hawking?

"I told you so."

Just never gets old.

Hahahaha now we're facing a threat that will make 9/11 pale in comparison? Mind telling us more, or is that just going to help the terrorists? I wanna see how he's gunna trump that one.

The First: Anyone really believe this crap that Bush is hawking?

Most people never even hear it, and if they do they just sit there with a blank look on their face. (o_o)

Pavia_Resistance: Weaver95: The bill provides retroactive immunity to telecom companies that helped the government gather intelligence after the Sept. 11 attacks. The current rules expire Saturday.


No immunity. If you break the rules (even for a good reason) then you face the consequences.

No immunity.

If they really did nothing wrong, then they have nothing to worry about. Right?

Isn't that what we were told when we biatched about wiretapping in the first place?

quatchi: Do you think secrecy just grows on trees? Heck no, in order to garner all that secrecy unto themselves they had to get it somewhere. Ergo the people's right to privacy had to be stripped away in order to make it so.

No Immunity.

Remember kids, McCain voted for immunity, Hillary didn't vote, and Obama voted against.

If you live in CA, Feinstein voted for immunity. Boxer voted against it.

"I really don't understand why the telecoms did it."

Everyone knows they did it for money. Qwest supposedly refused and had their contracts canceled and former CEO convicted.

If what they did was legal under the law, there would be no need for immunity. It's time for someone to just summarily put the officers of the companies involved in jail.

The immunity in question is immunity from lawsuits in civil court. You can be sued without breaking the law. For example, you can unilaterally break a contract, which is not a crime, but if you get immunity from lawsuits, you can't be sued in civil courts.

I'm not defending the actions of the telecoms or the Bush administration, but just trying to explain how one can need immunity for non-criminal acts.

The coverage of this issue by the right-wing press has been absolutely the worst I've seen. They won't even mention the issue of de-facto legalization of unauthorized domestic wiretaps, which is what Bush and the Republicans want.

I watched Fox, listened to Dennis Miller, listened to Savage and Limbaugh, and they all basically repeated the same thing:

"Why are the Democrats trying to stop us from going after the bad guys!? It's insane! The Democrats are just trying to cover up their drug using, pedophile buddies who might get caught 'by accident' under these programs."

They ALL used the word "bad guys" over and over and over again; almost as if they had agreed upon it beforehand. Perish the thought.

"They want the feds to have to call up the ACLU every time they want to tap a terrorist!"

Yet another lie they repeat knowing it's not true; that the FISA court regularly issues retroactive warrants. But that doesn't jibe with their agenda of increasing the power of the Executive at any cost.

"It's just Bush hate!"

Uhuh.

"If they didn't do anything wrong, then they've got nothing to hide..."

"The only ones who have to worry, are criminals..."

Boy, that must really suck to have that thrown back in their faces...

Prospero424 The coverage of this issue by the right-wing press has been absolutely the worst I've seen.

Thank you for using the correct term. It drives me batty that "right wing" and "conservative" are used synonymously, when at the moment they usually are not at all related.

Winston Churchill, T. Roosevelt and Goldwater were conservatives. The Bush admin, Fox & Friends, NRO, the WSJ editorial board, Coulter, Limbaugh et. al. are right wing radicals. There is a vast difference.

Axolotl: Prospero424 The coverage of this issue by the right-wing press has been absolutely the worst I've seen.

Thank you for using the correct term. It drives me batty that "right wing" and "conservative" are used synonymously, when at the moment they usually are not at all related.

Winston Churchill, T. Roosevelt and Goldwater were conservatives. The Bush admin, Fox & Friends, NRO, the WSJ editorial board, Coulter, Limbaugh et. al. are right wing radicals. There is a vast difference.

An ENORMOUS difference...

if the shiat they pulled is totally legal why do they need immunity?

I know somebody else said it, but i'll say it again.. If you've got nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about.

Prospero424: The coverage of this issue by the right-wing press has been absolutely the worst I've seen. They won't even mention the issue of de-facto legalization of unauthorized domestic wiretaps, which is what Bush and the Republicans want.

I watched Fox, listened to Dennis Miller, listened to Savage and Limbaugh, and they all basically repeated the same thing:

"Why are the Democrats trying to stop us from going after the bad guys!? It's insane! The Democrats are just trying to cover up their drug using, pedophile buddies who might get caught 'by accident' under these programs."

They ALL used the word "bad guys" over and over and over again; almost as if they had agreed upon it beforehand. Perish the thought.

"They want the feds to have to call up the ACLU every time they want to tap a terrorist!"

Yet another lie they repeat knowing it's not true; that the FISA court regularly issues retroactive warrants. But that doesn't jibe with their agenda of increasing the power of the Executive at any cost.

"It's just Bush hate!"

Uhuh.

They still don't realize that the public is fed up with fear and probably won't until the election. The GOP should have distanced themselves from Bush but are loyal as ever.

depmode98: if the shiat they pulled is totally legal why do they need immunity?

I know somebody else said it, but i'll say it again.. If you've got nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about.

It's more immunity from lawsuits--legal or not, there are a few cases of folks being improperly detained, and quite possibly on the strength of wire tap evidence--and with some fast and loose played with the whole shebang. The phone companies are in that chain, and would be open season, and worse, the records would be opened up, which would mean even more folks could then take exception to exactly how fast and loose they played with folks' privacy...

Axolotl: Winston Churchill, T. Roosevelt and Goldwater were conservatives. The Bush admin, Fox & Friends, NRO, the WSJ editorial board, Coulter, Limbaugh et. al. are right wing radicals. There is a vast difference.

Absolutely.

Just. Watch. Keith O. (KO):

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Olbermann_Bush_panoramic_invasion_of_privacy_0215. html

Watch.

CHAZZZ: They still don't realize that the public is fed up with fear...

You know, I really hope that's true. I really, really do. But I just don't know. There are a LOT of people still out there who want nothing more than to just hear focus-grouped macho chest thumping. Anything else is just "too much information" for them.

I just hope that these people have been politically marginalized to the point where they won't matter in a general election and that nothing surprising and violent happens in, say, October to turn at least a third of the remaining voters back into panicked, hooting baboons just before they go into the voting booth.

Link (new window)

Weird how that took three tries.

So Bush basically wants him and his corporate buddies to be able to break the law and receive a get out of jail free card after the fact.

Prospero424: CHAZZZ: They still don't realize that the public is fed up with fear...

You know, I really hope that's true. I really, really do. But I just don't know. There are a LOT of people still out there who want nothing more than to just hear focus-grouped macho chest thumping. Anything else is just "too much information" for them.

I just hope that these people have been politically marginalized to the point where they won't matter in a general election and that nothing surprising and violent happens in, say, October to turn at least a third of the remaining voters back into panicked, hooting baboons just before they go into the voting booth.

I think Rudy 9/11 Gulianni's utter failure is a good example. When people realized he was just like Bush and the only thing he had was fear. He became a national joke and even the Republicans dumped him.

zipdog: The immunity in question is immunity from lawsuits in civil court. You can be sued without breaking the law. For example, you can unilaterally break a contract, which is not a crime, but if you get immunity from lawsuits, you can't be sued in civil courts.

I'm not defending the actions of the telecoms or the Bush administration, but just trying to explain how one can need immunity for non-criminal acts.

What you say is true, but I don't believe it applies in this case. The only reason the TelCos would be liable is because they broke the law, not because of a contract issue.

CHAZZZ: I think Rudy 9/11 Gulianni's utter failure is a good example. When people realized he was just like Bush and the only thing he had was fear. He became a national joke and even the Republicans dumped him.

The sad thing is that I doubt that's what sunk Giuliani. He polled higher than any of the other candidates among GOP voters on the issues of domestic security and terrorism.

The key phrase there being "GOP voters", though...

If he had a cleaner personal record, a more forceful policy against illegal immigration, and a southern accent, I think he would have gone all the way.

I'm certainly glad he's gone, though. To me, he represented the absolute worst choice.

Axolotl: Thank you for using the correct term. It drives me batty that "right wing" and "conservative" are used synonymously, when at the moment they usually are not at all related.

I agree that they aren't conservative (and never were) but they brought in upon themselves by embracing these propagandists and siding with them for years. Where's the conservative outrage? It didn't exist until public opinion turned against their brand of hate-filled incestuous amplification and now they must reap what they sow.

Prospero424: CHAZZZ: I think Rudy 9/11 Gulianni's utter failure is a good example. When people realized he was just like Bush and the only thing he had was fear. He became a national joke and even the Republicans dumped him.

The sad thing is that I doubt that's what sunk Giuliani. He polled higher than any of the other candidates among GOP voters on the issues of domestic security and terrorism.

The key phrase there being "GOP voters", though...

If he had a cleaner personal record, a more forceful policy against illegal immigration, and a southern accent, I think he would have gone all the way.

I'm certainly glad he's gone, though. To me, he represented the absolute worst choice.

I agree, he was definitely the worst candidate and it was fun to watch him fail. I was surprised that the Republicans voted for the best choice. They didn't vote for either flip-flopper or the religious right's posterboy which is a good sign IMO. Hopefully America wants something different.

mome23:
What you say is true, but I don't believe it applies in this case. The only reason the TelCos would be liable is because they broke the law, not because of a contract issue.

What criminal law did they break? The did violate their customer's right to privacy, but such a violation is not a crime. This type of issue would be heard (and has been heard) in a civil court. The frightening thing is that the telcos willingly cooperated with the government. There were no warrants issued nor did the government force them to give access. They pretty much just turned it over. It doesn't matter if they give the kind of access they gave to another company, government, or individual. The telco can be sued for the violation. The telcos didn't break any criminal laws, but did break civil laws, or rather the case that they broke civil laws is before a court. So while no crime may have been committed, laws have been broken. The immunity that they want is to keep them from being sued for past actions in civil court, much like the immunity for past actions criminals are given for testifying in a criminal case.

I don't see why congress can grant immunity for violating the constitution. Doesn't Illegal search and seizure apply here?

Won't this go to the Supreme court?

/so confused...
//not a legal farker