Roadblock for Telecom Immunity

[rodeodance]

Source: wpost

Roadblock for Telecom Immunity
Senate Judiciary Leaders Resist Leniency for Surveillance

By Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 1, 2007; A06

In a blow to the Bush administration, the Senate Judiciary Committee's top Democrat and Republican expressed reluctance yesterday to granting blanket immunity to telecommunications carriers sued for assisting the government's warrantless surveillance program.

Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and the ranking Republican, Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), had said that before even considering such a proposal, they would need to see the legal documents underpinning the program, which began after Sept. 11, 2001, and were put under court oversight in January.

On Tuesday, the committee was given access to some of the documents. But Leahy said yesterday that he had a "grave concern" about blanket immunity, saying that "it seems to grant . . . amnesty for telecommunications carriers for warrantless surveillance activities."

The activities seem to be "in violation of the privacy rights of Americans" and of federal domestic surveillance law, he said, noting that he is still "carefully considering" what is in the documents.



Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/31/AR2007103103126_pf.html

[bjobotts]

1. The courts have already heard and decided trhe appeals and telecoms want congress to

interfere with the courts to bail them out. Let the courts decide it. That's why we have them...when corporations don't get the decisions they want they expect congress to overrule the courts and earn all the campaign contributions they've been given. The telecoms were doing this before 9/11 attacks...the courts have already heard it all. Telecoms have billions and billions and more billions from all the lucrative government contracts they got in bribes to allow the illegal spying.

They would pay no attention to staying within the law if they suffer no consequences for breaking it.

[Hubert Flottz]

2. "If they have nothing to hide why would they be worried about it?"

If they broke the law they should pay for it like everybody else does.

[Eric J in MN]

3. If Congress decides that taxpayers should pay the damages, as Arlen Specter suggests,

...then corporations will have no deterrent to future lawbreaking.

[efhmc]

15. Is there any way to keep them from just passing the costs along to the

consumer in the event they are fined?

[SHRED]

4. BEFORE 9-11?

"...the program, which began after Sept. 11, 2001..."

What about the program that started BEFORE 9-11?
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/tech/article/0,2777,DRMN_23910_5719566,00.html

[peacebird]

5. I noticed that too.

[SHRED]

6. They insist on portraying this as an "after 9-11" issue

Very frustrating to hear.

[mirrera]

11. Exactly! MSM has been consistently saying AFTER when it was before! n/t

[Joanne98]

13. I guess we're not talking about that one!

[Orsino]

7. These days, "expressing reluctance" is considered a blow...

...to the * Administration. Typically, it precedes near-total capitulation by Congress.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

9. No need for my post.

"Reluctance," indeed. :thumbsup:

[rockybelt]

8. Amnesty

What about before 9-11? These bastards in the white house started this crap from the very first day their regime started.:mad:

[cstanleytech]

10. They only expressed "reluctance"?

My cynical side is saying that translates roughly as "We want to atleast try and appear like we have some sort of backbone but truthfully we could care less about this issue".

[McCamy Taylor]

12. The Judiciary Committee is the only fuctioning body of Congress

Good job, Leahy!

[aggiesal]

14. This is such BS, ...

"... they would need to see the legal documents underpinning the program, which began after Sept. 11, 2001, and were put under court oversight in January."

Everyone knows that Verizon started handing over telephone records to this administration within 3 months after taking office. A full 6 months before 9/11.

[NBachers]

16. Email Ellen Nakashima

Email Ellen Nakashima at http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/ellen+nakashima/

Here's a copy of the email I sent. It doesn't have a link; and I'm late to get off to work. If someone could send her links establishing that the program began way earlier, it would strengthen the case for a correction in the Post. If they won't do their work, let's show them how.

Ellen: In your story, "Roadblock for Telecom Immunity" in the Thursday, 11-1 issue of the Post, you stated, "they would need to see the legal documents underpinning the program, which began after Sept. 11, 2001"

This program started way before September 11, 2001; in fact, it started shortly after George W Bush took office.

Please issue a correction through your paper.

[On the Road]

17. Good -- There Should be No Blanket Immunity

Telecoms have said that laws passed since Sep 11 required them to turn over documents. Even if the laws were unconstitutional, I think that's a good defense, and they should not be held guilty for that.

But there's also evidence that telecoms cooperated without being compelled both before and after Sep 11. They should be accountable for that.

[WilyWondr]

18. 2 Americas

The RIAA sues Jammie Thomas, who earned $30,000 this year, for violating the copyright law and the jury awarded them $222,000. A juror said "We wanted to send a message that you don't do this, that you have been warned."

Millions of people are threatening to sue Verizon, who earned $92,220,000,000 this year, for violating citizens right to privacy.

I think a fine "to send a message that you don't do this, that you have been warned" would be good. Something like $682,428,000,000 would cause other telecoms to think twice before they hand anything over, don't you?
:evilgrin:

[robinlynne]

19. good move! now take out the blanket warrants too!